Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Charvet customers
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
— User:Racconish, 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RELIST||WP:NOCONSENSUS (Wikipedia:Deletion process)