Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy (fragrance)


 * 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 redirect to Britney Spears products as an alternative to deletion. Cogent arguments made about the suitability of RSes and info can be merged there if desired. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fantasy (fragrance)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:PRODUCT; WP:PROMO; WP:FANCRUFT. This article is straight-up advertisement, with little encyclopedic value. Sources used (TMZ, "Now Smell This Perfume", NY Post, press releases etc.) are questionable in terms of reliability. HĐ (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: as per nom, this is a straight-up advertisement and a waste of time and talent. WP:PRODUCT; WP:PROMO; WP:FANCRUFT all apply. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Brittany Spears article; otherwise delete as it's largely a puff piece for each and every kind of perfume. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge to Britney Spears, all this is a bunch of promotional junk, no need for an entire article about it. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into new article: This is one of the few celebrity perfume lines that actually does have significant external coverage in reliable sources. As a whole they were the subject of an extensive feature in InStyle (https://www.instyle.com/celebrity/britney-spears-perfume-billion-dollar-business), and Midnight Fantasy specifically received a perfect four-star review by the New York Times' perfume critic Chandler Burr (https://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/scent-notes-midnight-fantasy-britney-spears/) -- a review that itself was deemed noteworthy enough to receive external coverage, e.g. the InStyle article, or this feature in Racked (https://www.racked.com/2016/10/20/13260722/curious-britney-spears-perfume-fantasy-fragrance). All of these are either reported features or professional reviews in reliable sources. There was also an article on the line's launch in Women's Wear Daily, and though it's paywalled the glimpse I was able to read suggested it was substantial (https://wwd.com/beauty-industry-news/beauty-features/a-fragrance-fantasy-for-spears-570650); other coverage of its launch in business publications mentions the original Fantasy was the fourth best-selling women's perfume that year. (https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/britney-is-in-control-of-perfume-sales-20060724-jfas0) Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, perhaps the best solution is to create an intermediate layer between the general Britney Spears products article and the individual perfume articles on Spears' fragrance business as a whole. It clearly has received a great deal of news coverage solely focused on it, separate from her music and other products. (It would not be a puff piece either, as such an article would likely also include the lawsuit over the business: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/britney-spears-sued-10m-fragrance-172992). A lot of the comments here ("a waste of time and talent," "promotional junk") appear to assume that the topic is inherently non-notable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I could understand the credibility of Instyle and NYTimes, which offer in-depth analysis on the perfume's financial success etc. I am not so sure about Racked (is it reliable? never heard of it) or WWD (press coverage is rather discouraged I believe). Merging to Britney Spears products can be a good alternative, as InStyle also offers insights into Britney Spears's other business ventures. For information on the perfume line alone, however, I do not think the sources could offer that much insights regarding the packaging/concept/ideas etc. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Racked was a fashion-industry vertical of Vox Media, which is a reliable source per WP:RSP. I'm not sure what you mean by "press coverage is rather discouraged" but WWD is an established trade publication, owned at the time by Conde Nast. (It isn't on WP:RSP but other Conde publications are; all of them have been deemed reliable.)
 * The reason I suggest creating a separate article is that the fragrance line isn't just notable because of its association with Britney Spears but is genuinely influential/notable in the fragrance industry. Both features cite industry leaders (Parlux president, former Elizabeth Arden exec) and sales statistics supporting this. (They also go into the packaging, concept, and ideas of at least the major entries; obviously there wouldn't need to be an exhaustive rundown for all of the dozen-plus flankers. There's probably more sourcing on that, as well.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2021 (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.