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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessentially Group[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Part of a spam campaign for this entity and its subsidiaries. All sub articles have been speedily deleted and founder articles redirected. This article has been chopped down from a spamfest to a stub, but reliable sources do not provide the significant level of coverage required for notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says this is a luxury lifestyle company, whatever that's supposed to mean. I gather this is some kind of catalog sales operation targeting the rich, but they can't bring themselves to say that, it makes them sound too similar to Sears. The Guardian piece discusses this in the midst of a general story about the trend. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is basically provides services to busy rich people. The Times has profiled the founder, as well providing some coverage about the business. The New York Times has also profiled the founder and written about the company. It is covered as part of an article about concierge service companies in India. And it's move into the Indian market was covered. The New York Post has written about it, and Newsweek confirms Elliot's relationship to Camilla Parker Bowles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage above. I've taken out some dubious information about the company, but I do think that it passes WP:ORG since it has significant secondary sources discussing it. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a group of links to third-party coverage of the company in the press to the article's talk page. I have not expressed an opinion on whether the article should stay or go, as I have a conflict of interest which has caused trouble already. I am therefore just adding some information which I believe displays notability. Thanks. Prdharmer (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2011 (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.