Deletion of Jeeves of Belgravia

Comment: I declined the speedy, and I have just added more sources to the article. I believe that it meets , with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, these being ''The New York Times'', ''The Guardian'', the ''Independent'', UPI (in several publications, here referenced to ''The Galveston Daily News''), ''The Telegraph'' and the ''Hong Kong Tatler''. I note too that the coverage extends from 1979, through 1980, 2003, 2014, and 2017. While some of the sources cover sales of the companies, they do not appear to me to be "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage", as they contain 6 or more paragraphs. I have not checked all databases for sources - I will add more if I find it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGCRITE)

Comment: Being run-of-the-mill is not a reason to delete and, in any case, the assertion is false as this is an exceptional business, specialising in luxury items and holding a royal warrant.  This exceptional nature is recognised in educational work such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1m_VCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT307 this'' and so the topic passes . See also , , 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE)