Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClickR Skin Care


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ClickR Skin Care

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:CORP. looks like a blatant advert. references are promotional sources. 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. The references would appear to be a snow job.  A completely "vegan" line of skin care process for vegans who don't apparentlh mind dosing themselves with heavy metals: suite of four cleansers and lotions includes ingredients like diamond dust, gold, and silver....  Unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. I'm not sure what the commenter above means by "snow job," but all the references in this article are sources that were found easily enough using Google. I did make use of a goodly amount of self-pub material for what seemed to me to be non-controversial assertions, however there are several sources that were published by notable publishers and which were seemingly independent of the subject (footnotes 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11). I wrote most of the older article on Florence Sender, and after the section about clickr in her article grew to be a little unwieldy, I forked an expanded version of the clickr subsection into its own article. If there is consensus that this company is non-notable on its own merits, this material should be folded back into the article about Sender. Sender is notable in her own right, and this material is definitely relevant to her biography, which describes her as a "serial entrepreneur." If there are problems with neutrality, I encourage other editors to be bold in working towards resolving them. The article would certainly benefit from the attention of others. I'm not sure that there is much reason to attack the article based on the substance of the claims made by the company about the products, although if there are any controversial claims made in the encyclopedic voice I would agree they should be modified so as to be clearly attributed to someone. Whether the claims by the company are true or not, and whether these ingredients are "good" or not, information about how the company promotes its products is relevant in describing the niche market in which the company is competing. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that they use this Wikipedia page as the "About" page on their website gives me some hesitation; however, this appears to be a nationally distributed product and therefore, relevant.  It could use some to make it sound less like an ad.Dakart (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but being "nationally distributed" does not come anywhere near to establishing notability by Wikipedia's guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Delete Contrary to what DickClarkMises suggests, none of the sources cited constitutes substantial coverage in independent sources. Several of them are press releases. At least one of the sources that DickClarkMises gives as "seemingly independent of the subject" is an advertisement (one at monstersandcritics.com) and several are short pieces full of hyperbole and peacock terms, of a kind that is indistinguishable from advertising. A couple of the sources are announcements that someone called "Cam Gigandet" (who apparently is famous) has a contract with ClickR to promote their products, and they could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as substantial coverage of ClickR. In short, a promotional article without a single source that can really be regarded as substantial coverage by a reliable third party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Smerdis. a majority of the sources the article uses promote the products of ClickR Skin Care (such as sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). If the entire article was rewritten with a neutral, non-spam perspective and used non-biased, reliable sources, then it could possibly be considered a keep.--Ahenry32 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2011 (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.