Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnbull & Asser

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep; we shouldn't be nominating stuff on AfD when no-one wants it deleted, just because of what someone suspects might be written in policy somewhere. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turnbull & Asser

I personally don't believe this page should be deleted. Simply listing here to stop the warring regarding a speedy deletion. Lets get the debate happening. MyNameIsNotBob 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its a notable fashion label and I have re written the article. During the time I was writting it however it was deleted and I re made the page and its been nominated again for reposted deleted content which it is not. Woldo 09:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has to be notable, formed in 1885 and still operating today. Also has over 38,000 google results. MyNameIsNotBob 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the nomination seems to be some kind of misunderstanding; there appears to be no-one actually advocating the deletion of the article. But why is almost half the content in a "trivia" section? If these thing are significant enough to be mentioned, they should be integrated into the main article text. up+land 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that although I put up the speedy repost tag because the article was deleted previously, I don't particularly think the article should be deleted. But policy is policy, yes? Some citations other than the company website would be useful. Kevin 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Found two articles with their name in, one major via google news.[1]--Andeh 11:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy is not policy. Policy is actually a kind of shrew that inhabits the foot of Mount Everest and lives a very sad life providing food for sherpa guides and the mountain-climbing suicides who love them. Like all shrews, Policy is known for its need to be the centre of attention, but we can safely ignore it much of the time — we do what policy says when it's a good idea, not merely for the sake of it. After all, it's only a big rat, when all's said and done. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.