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. Spinning Spark 19:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Grant Macdonald

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

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

The references are either primary, unreliable (e.g. London SE1) or only mention the company in passing. This from the FT's "howtospendit" site is the best that site is no way comparable to coverage in the FT proper. WP:CORP does not appear to be met and this is just a flashy ad for the company. SmartSE ( talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. I've looked at most of the refs and I think they are falling just short of notability. I googled and looked at news and they have quite a lot of coverage not in the article, but it is pretty much the same as what is in the article, bits and pieces. Szzuk ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is an article about them in the financial times, they have a royal warrant as silversmiths to the British family, and have a section of Harrods dedicated to them, as well as many mentions of their work (including the Dresden Orb)...and they've been established for 50 years. I think they just qualify for WP:Notability Deathlibrarian ( talk) 23:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Deathlibrarian: As I said in the nomination, the article is not in the FT proper but in a weekend supplement which while reliable, isn't anywhere near as indicative of notability as an article in the real FT would be. If there were other sources then I would be persuaded the other way, but I don't think they exist. Your comments about the royal warrant and how long they have been in business do not have any basis in policy. SmartSE ( talk) 13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

While it may be a weekend supplement, I highly doubt the FT would be publishing feature articles about fictitious companies Deathlibrarian ( talk) 00:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I can find five articles on Factiva, including an article in The Times, that feature Grant Macdonald. This seems to substantiate them as noteworthy, if you take into account the royal warrant.

• "Object Lesson: Grant Macdonald's Gemini centrepiece" Bethan Ryder Bethan Ryder 262 words 22 July 2014 5:56 GMT "The Telegraph"
• Mike Litherland "Under the Hammer" 417 words, 4 March 2017, Liverpool Echo
• "More Money Than Sense?" Daily Mail, 30 January 2014, 97 words, (English)
• "Beautiful and deadly, too"25 October 2003 "The Times"Money 10
• "Grant Macdonald" Director, 1 October 2012, 590 words, Hannah Baker, Hannah Baker, (English) Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - a Royal warrant matters in Britain for a lot. Bearian ( talk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep but rewrite and trim to a stub that could be supported on the basis of WP:RS. As Bearian noted, the company holds a royal warrant. Chetsford ( talk) 05:04, 25 February 2018 (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.