Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estée Lauder pleasures


 * 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Estée Lauder pleasures

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Also goes against WP:NOT Russavia (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News Archieves has over 300 sources listed for this line so it is both verifiable and notable. . Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Having looked thru Google News (before putting this up for Afd), I noticed that many of the results are press releases, so they can't be used as a basis for WP:N. Many other sources don't write extensively on the product in an encyclopaedic fashion, and many others mention Pleasures but in the context of the overall Estee Lauder product line/profits/etc. And then there are some which are about Pleasures, but other products such as Pleasures Delight, Pleasures Exotic, etc. And then some are about Gwyneth Paltrow being the face of the product; this may be suitable for a mention in her article but as notability isn't inherited, it can't be used to give this product notability. --Russavia (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It won the 1995 FIFI awards! Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am aware it won the 1995 FIFI, however, this alone can not be used as a determination as to whether an article is suitable for inclusion, yay or nay? My opin is nay, unfortunately.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   -- Russavia (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:RS are abundant, nominator is being querulous. Rebecca (talk) 05:15, 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) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyvio/Comment I have removed from this article copyvio which has been lifted off another website. Pricing information removed due to WP:NOT. The 'reference' does not exist and is a commercial website so have removed that as a potential spam link under WP:EL. Having a celebrity endorsement is not reason enough for an encyclopaedia entry. --Russavia (talk) 06:11, 22 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.