Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Safe Cosmetics


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotional article for a non-notable organization. An earlier PROD was removed because of "many search hits"--well, there may be many hits, but the ones that might look helpful are just really short mentions, besides a ton of just websites and non-neutral outfits. Here is the book listed in the article: a single mention; here is the LA Times article: a single mention with a brief appositive. There is no proper coverage for notability.

The article itself--well, there's a ton of name dropping, a bunch of organizational links, and an audacious claims, "CSC helped pass two new laws in California," linked to their own website. The subject does not meet our standards. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Mentioned here, not really helping notability. Rest are PR links or primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations,  and Environment.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself is too promotional. Agletarang (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - pure self-promotion. Llajwa (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2024 (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.