Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Celebrity endorsed perfumes


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Celebrity endorsed perfumes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another list that seems useless. Ridernyc 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I wonder how long it will take for people to realise that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we don't need lists of everything! Seriously, this is about the 20th listcruft article listed on AfD since last weekend.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I nominated everyone I come across we would need a new category for listcruft. These are just the ones I'm finding as I patrol new articles. Ridernyc 22:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This list was created on October 4th, 2007. I believe it was very unfair of you to nominate it for deletion so soon after its good faith creation. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not technically an indiscriminate list, although not very useful either. An indiscriminate list is one that does not discriminate between various items within a list, and conveys no information except that the items have something in common as indicated by the title.  Generally, these are nothing but blue-links, whereas in this case a little (very little) information is added, such as the names of the perfumes endorsed by the celeb.  At this time, most of this seems to be original research, culled from advertisements.
 * Nor is this a frivolous article. One would expect that there probably are some articles available about the perfume industry, whose revenues depend, more than most products, on a celebrity endorsement, something that's been true since the days of Coco Chanel.  Shopping for a scent is generally an act of faith, since it's impractical to test each product in advance.  This can be improved quite easily. Mandsford 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I interpret indiscriminate differently--it is one that includes every possible item or company in an a group without limiting itself to the important ones. The discrimination is betweeen the ones included and the ones not included. DGG (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand Perhaps it needs a title change, but those darn celebs keep coming out with perfumes, and this list is handy. It certainly is not indiscriminate. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * what exactly is it handy for?Ridernyc 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Arbitrary, indiscriminate and incomplete list. They seem to believe celebrities only exist in the present. See for instance "Svetlana's Breath," the Soviet perfume endorsed by Svetlana Stalin . Perhaps recentism is a consequence of original research. Edison 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There, I added "* Svetlana Stalin: Svetlana's Breath" to the list. Problem solved; lets keep and expand the list. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Were there any other celebrities who endorsed perfumes other than the now-famous individuals listed, like in previous decades? Elizabeth Taylor comes to mind, but what about in the 20's 30's 40's etc? The article needs sources, not just original research. Didn't Joan Crawford promote "Jungle Gardenia?" Didn't Marilyn Monroe say she wore nothing to bed but "Chanel No 5?" Edison 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: I think that if you are interpreting "incomplete" as an argument for deletion, you don't understand the Wikipedia model at all. -- 192.250.34.161 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I understand very well that we do not have articles with arbitrary listings of things an editor likes, chosen by their original research, and not sourced to any secondary reliable source. I have shown that the list is arbitrary and indiscriminate, and not based on well defined criteria. Edison 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is a legitimate concern. "Arbitrary" and "indiscriminate", at least as you seem to be using the words, are side-effects of the very model upon which Wikipedia operates, just as "incomplete" is.  As for "original research", do you think the original research is in deeming that Christina Aguilera is a celebrity, or that she endorses the perfume which bears her name? -- 192.250.34.161 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand An exceptional business model. Needs an article too. Add references and I would like to see the year each was introduced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. I think this AFD is another sad example of people using "xxxxcruft" when they really mean is "an xxxx that I don't like" -- in other words, the nominator rails against listcruft without giving a hint as to what he believes the difference is between a useful list and a listcruft list.  I believe that the celebrity-endorsement model of perfume marketing is an intriguing aspect of the culture behind perfumes, and some of the examples that are in this list, or could be on this list, make that even more apparent.  I would like to see this list improved with more organization, such as classification by decade, and by noting those celebrities who fall outside the expected image of perfume-endorsing celebrities (for example:  Alan Cumming, Svetlana Stalin, Kiss, Marilyn Manson...) -- 192.250.34.161 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I created this list only because it's part of the Perfume article and it was (IMO) starting to really degrade that article. If people must have a list of celebrity perfumes (and people keep adding to it on the Perfume article, so presumably they do) let's keep it separate from Perfume. For the record, I don't think it's particularly interesting either. Wjousts 12:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't like list articles in general.  But as lists go, this one is pretty focused and coherent - compare to the other list articles on today's AfD.  Moreover, this is a useful list, if you're interested in research on celebrity marketing or perfumes.  Bacchiad 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that wikipedia doesn't need a list of everything, but you never know if people will be curious about a topic like this. For example, I noticed that a lot of celebrities have a perfumes, but before I saw this list, I didn't know there were that many. MaJic 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - one of those subjects which verges on list cruft/trivia, but then again I would hate to see as a category. Its not technically an indiscriminate list, although I can't imagine anyone but those who have annual subscriptions to at least three celebrity magazines would find it useful. If its to stay, needs some work. Rgds, --Trident13 13:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This seems worthwhile - I agree with the anonymous "keep and improve" comment above. Llajwa 15:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not every list is listcruft. This is the sort of thing that people value Wikipedia for.--Bedivere 21:12, 8 October 2007 (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.