Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmetics & Toiletries


 * 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   no consensus. I almost closed this as keep but in the end I think it more appropriately falls as no consensus to delete rather than consensus to keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cosmetics & Toiletries

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable magazine and I can't find sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only relevant links I found were this YouTube video, one small mention here and three links focusing with the magazine's awards here, here and here. Additionally, this magazine is mentioned once at this press release. Considering that the article claims the magazine has been publishing since 1906, I thought I would also search with Google News archives but found nearly of all the links were "subscription required" from highbeam.com SwisterTwister   talk  21:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that sources are subscription only is not an argument for deletion--sources don't have to be online at all.  The article mentions that this publication was called American Perfumer or some variation thereon from 1906 to 1972, and GNews does reveal at least a few sources that seem treat this as a significant trade publication.  If that's not enough, I'd think merging it to Allured Business Media would be a better result than deletion--there are lots of sources that talk about the publisher and its assorted publications, including this one. The article is written in a rather spammy style, as is the Allured article, and if kept it would be nice to clean that up.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, sources can be books or other non-Internet references, but I believe online sources may help if the viewer wants to verify the content themselves. Although your Google News link shows results, it's possible that the company may not have received significant coverage at its young. Additionally, I searched Google News archives for "Essential Oil Review" and only found two results here (seventh from the top) and here (sixth from the top). SwisterTwister   talk  01:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  11:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now If the text is accurate, this is a 106 year old magazine and of significant scale, albeit 1/2 of a split of it. Needs references. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Relisting comment: Last relist. If nobody brings any new argument to this discussion by this time next week, this should be closed as no quorum.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - An historic magazine first published in 1906. Sources may be available offline. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:35, 14 September 2012 (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.