Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxfresh

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 was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Boxfresh

Boxfresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Piotrus's PROD was removed by Michig so here we are at AfD and the best my searches found were only passing mentions with "Boxfresh British fashion label Roger Wade" at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam so hardly much to suggest even a minimally better notable and improvable article. Also notifying the only still active tagger Rayman60. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The PROD was not valid. There's enough coverage around if you look for it. Article improvement is a better alternative to bringing every article with issues to AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Obvious notability, and obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. Laziness is not valid reasons for deletion. Cavarrone 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Michig and Cavarrone the firm's name is in two of the RS titles. 009o9 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG. I would have to agree with Michig that article improvement is a better alternative to bringing every article with issues to AfD. It safe energy and time. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Close. Refs are cast iron, not sure what we're discussing. Snow keep. Szzuk (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2015 (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.