Warren James Jewellers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Should be deleted because it lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing found in support of retaining this article here. Ran a WP:BEFORE but hope of finding WP:SIGCOV effectively truncated by the abysmal search result. Patre23 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote From an initial review, there appears to be a lack of secondary sources. However, the company is - in my view - notable. It is described in 2006 as "the United Kingdom's largest independent jeweller" in a Nominet ruling. It is described as a national jewellery retailer in a more recent 2023 legal judgment. It's last statutory accounts show a revenue of over £100m per year. I will attempt to complete a more thorough review of secondary sources to support notability. Salicia7 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the Nominet ruling as a citation, but struggled to find further secondary sources. However, in my view there is adequate references for a stub of this lenght. Salicia7 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]