Deletion of List of Charvet customers

Comment: Nomination reeks of . Let's assess the actual article on its own merits. Is it neutral? Yes. Is it factually accurate? It is thoroughly referenced, so yes. Does it contain original research? No. Is it of interest to our readers? I would argue that for most brands, including Chanel and Yves Sain Laurent which are mass-advertised, the answer would be no. However, for this particular brand I suspect the answer might differ. The custom of Charles Haughey, for example, was the subject of significant interest. The question is whether being a Charvet customer is something of note, of distinction. Is it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: In order to help reaching a consensus and after consideration of some constructive aspects of the discussion so far, I have completely redone the page. A number of customers did not fit the new categories, but the page is now focused and objections based on 3 addressed. I hope this will meet critics issues. I added a note on Al Capone and Lucky Luciano in the main article and listed removed customers on the Talk page to facilitate further work
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: With all due respect, I don't see that the discussion so far lacked thoroughness or participants. It lacked consensus. Per  "relisting a debate should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If closer feels that there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable," with the consequence per  to default to keep. This said, in order to ensure constructive discussion, I suggest to take it for granted that, in view of the existence of a "thorough" article on Charvet, we admit some development on Charvet customers are also a legitimate part of Wikipedia. Let's assume also the main article and this development are long enough to consider possible forking out, which does not mean we have to discuss here how long the sub-article should be or what the editing criteria are. The proper AFD question is, according to me: do we prefer to fork out this necessarily minor sub-article or do we prefer to merge it into the main one. As a side note, anybody can check on the history of the main article that it was started out of interest for one of Charvet's customer
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:RELIST||WP:NOCONSENSUS)

Comment: To support the 'keep' arguments, I note that the article List of bow tie wearers has just come out its fifth AfD alive, despite the best efforts of some. While this ''proves'' nothing (which would be a  argument), it does strongly suggest that articles like these have a place on WP, as recognised by repeated failure to find a delete consensus, even after multiple listings
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: Although the nom might fit WP:WAX, this list definitely fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: An alphabetical list is by nature discriminated only by the alphabetical order. Yet, lists have a clear legibility advantage. With reference to , as a primary author, I have reorganized the article in a more meaningful way, in historical order, by countries and by nature of customers, in order to make it as clear and synthetic as possible, while keeping the list structure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per  items 2-4, 7, 8, and 10
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: on above reference to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)