Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Frida

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 delete. joe decker ^talk 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Frida

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

Promotional, but speedy decline. Borderline notability at best; and borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another example of it being too soon, nothing at all suggestive of anything minimally better convincing, some sources but those alone are not going to substantially save this. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, neither this subject or the founding designer appears on the Dutch wikipedia. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Netherlands Harper's Bazaar piece is the most substantial of the given references, but is a brief Q&A with the founder rather than in-depth coverage of the firm. Nor are my searches turning up anything which could meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: What I recall as being effectively the same article text was previously submitted on May 26th by
WP:SPA. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, the article is written like an advertisement, and is barely notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.