Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Logsdail

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Logsdail

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

Non-notable tailor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since included more details in his bio and film work (added the films in which he appears with a cameo) added non-trivial sources, including the New York times and Permanent Style. Please let me know if you feel that more information could be used. Thank you for your attention. Deanhdewey —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) I have added several more sources to add credibility to the notability of Leonard Logsdail as a tailor Deanhdewey —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firm keep - Well, I've just had a good read through a number of the sources, and Logsdail certainly more than meets the requirements. It's substantial coverage, discussion that is actually about him and his work, his life, his approaches to tailoring, etc. He's given plenty of credit for his contributions to costuming. Glancing at the page when it was nominated, I can see why it was nominated for deletion, but I do wonder whether the nominator even bothered to do a basic Google search first - a glance at Google Books pulls up lots of coverage in various publications across the board, not just a few name checks, but references such as this, which makes it very clear that Logsdail and his work are both held in high regard by those who know what they are talking about/doing, but also, I see quite a few namechecks for him in popular fiction and in other books where his name is just dropped as a byword for high end tailoring - not that those in themselves would be appropriate evidence of notability, BUT the fact there are quite a number of such name-checks in novels, etc, is a pretty big clue that this guy is KNOWN, and that he has name recognition. I also had a glance at the hits for his name in Google News, and quite a bit of decent coverage there too. So yes, I am surprised that this was nominated for deletion, rather than simply being tagged for improvement. Mabalu (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mabalu's analysis (which I confirm with a quick once over - books in particular).Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2017 (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.