Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco Mademoiselle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Coco Mademoiselle
Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS Russavia (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. These are all high-profile products by major brand names, each of which have not insignificant seperate claims to fame. It should not be hard to form good articles about each, should someone actually take the time to do non-Google research (newspaper archives should be a good start). The nominator, however, does not appear to have done any of these, and has just whacked a bunch of perfume articles on AfD. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. High profile consumer products are likely to get independent coverage. The products are subjects of legitimate curiosity: what's in them, what do they smell like. I do know there are various families of perfumes, like chypre and florals, under which these could be categorized. The fact that nobody has yet bothered to find any doesn't mean that it can't be done, and there is no deadline. There ought to be some kind of collectors or hobbyists who have written about these perfumes somewhere; the fact that I don't know where to look doesn't mean that no one knows. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I am unable to appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator's reasons are not valid as they are too general. I would expect a more specific explanation. The article itself is not great but quite correct. --Catgut (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
