Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D2 (clothing) (2nd nomination)

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. —Cryptic 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D2 (clothing)

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

Renominating based on WP:CORPDEPTH. Prev AfD had a majority keep !votes but no compelling arguments, and I'm not seeing enough about this company beyond some industry announcements, PR posts/reposts, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a couple of reference but am not finding substantial coverage about this firm, merely routine coverage at its outset, then announcements around its first and second administrations. Nothing that indicates lasting encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient reliable sources, lacks depth of coverage, not notable. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.