Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products endorsed by Jennifer Lopez


 * 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 consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

List of products endorsed by Jennifer Lopez

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete I don't think we need a Article like this. TucsonDavid U . S . A . 06:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Using what logic? — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:TucsonDavid, your points (or point) are too weak to tag a page for deletion that they are almost invalid; a page which is clearly a work in process, if you bothered to take a look at the tag. I think the page should be kept, she is an entrepreneur and has endorsed multiple (hundreds) of products  Arre  kea   06:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say this is a premature tag, but this list seems like cruft of the highest order; most of the links redirect to Jennifer Lopez anyway, which says a lot. &mdash; foxj 06:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was LITERALLY just created. I didn't even get a chance to add a single thing and it was tagged, without a reason even, other than that the person thinks "we don't need an article like this". I wouldn't go pulling the cruft card here, when I've complied and gotten two complied lists to FL (Jennifer Lopez discography and Jennifer Lopez filmography). This article is to become the same. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  06:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment Actually my reason is clearly valid and it does look like a list of cruft that is why I added the AFD tag. I'm not trying to dicourge User:Status. I may of taged it early but keep working on it you might change peoples minds. If a Admin wants to close it early and keep it I have no problem with that. TucsonDavid U . S . A . 07:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, as stated in the article: "Jennifer Lopez is... who is credited for bringing back celebrity perfume endorsements, which was deemed to be "dead" since the late 1980s." I'd say that's pretty notable, wouldn't you? She's had I don't know how many endorsement deals, and they are being complied up into a nice little list for readers to see. I can see what you mean as to how only "fans" would be interested in the subject, but the same thing could be said about discographies, and even article's about a person itself. Fancruft says: "This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion", in which, I'd say doesn't apply here. If you look at my previous work, as stated above, there is nothing fancruft-like about it - they are both featured lists. And obviously the article isn't well written or well refrenced ATM, as it was almost literally just created. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  07:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Is this a joke? Wasn't the page tagged as being "under construction"? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It mostly definitely was. First edit. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  08:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be cautious about an article like this. Looking back, we've deleted and merged things like this for other well-known people in the past. At the root of my concern: are there enough neutral, reliable sources to cite every product she's endorsed? Is there enough of a social impact or substantial research to prove her endorsements mean an increase in sales? If she ups business for each product 200 percent, I would be all for an article laying out the meaning of a JLo endorsement. But she didn't invent these products or have a notable enough connection to warrant a mention in their articles; she's just endorsed them, which is something celebrities are paid to do all the time, and which are very rarely notable by themselves. — Ed! (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article was still under construction when it was nominated for deletion. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, I get that, but my concern is that the page has to be going somewhere to indicate that it will be inherently notable in the future or that it can be backed up by some sources more reliable than commercials, because we've never kept an article like this, and I'm afraid even a completed list of products may run into a WP:NOONECARES argument and another AFD. — Ed! (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the case, I think Status can create the article in a sandbox to see how it comes along. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of the article is to expand upon this section of her main article. Have each type of endorsement separated with a heading, with a nice little paragraph detailing the type, and below, a list in chronological order. I don't understand who's to say that the article is useless - especially when it hasn't even been finished yet. It was literally nominated for deletion less than 5 minutes after it was created. There's nothing to defend, because nothing was able to be done. If you're so against something you've never even seen the final product of just because crappy useless articles like it have been made before, then that's your prerogative. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that it's not finished -- that's unimportant in my mind. The concern I have is where is this article going? Yes, I agree high-profile endorsements have a place in the article of a notable person, but a dedicated list of them isn't accomplishing anything by itself. The pages about Tiger Woods, Billy Mays and Micheal Jackson weren't deleted because they were poor, but because they failed to establish a real purpose for the list. We probably have the sources to create a List of Jennifer Lopez's favorite foods but the problem you'll run into with other users is that there isn't any real value in doing so; the interest here is very limited and it doesn't add anything of lasting value to Wikipedia from a scholarly standpoint. I would love to see a piece on her impacts on the products she endorses -- increases in sales and how she has helped guide any fashion trends as a result of them, and I'm all for the article if those kinds of additions are possible. That's the kind of social impact that will keep an article firmly out of AFD, and it will also have scholarly, third-party sources beyond ad campaigns to source the article and pass it through WP:RS. — Ed! (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Ed! you can't judge a page that was created minutes prior. When something is tagged Under Construction it implies that it is being worked on. And that topic is of high relevancy; it is to expand the section in her main article, which could very well do without that information if it was elsewhere. It is a notable page to have and a good guide. I say, again, keep. Also, Jennifer Lopez has made a huge impact in the ENDORSEMENT world. She brought back celebrity endorsement of perfume, and Britney (and everyone) followed -- that information about THAT impact is sourced and you can find that in her article, if you would like a piece. − Arrekea ♥ (Talk) 11:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, did you actually just compare a list of products endorsed by the woman who is deemed to have re-launched perfume endorsements among celebrities, to a list of her favorite foods? — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  18:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. As far as sources are concerned, do we have anything more reliable that commercials to cite this list to completion? And more importantly, do we have any indication that a list of product endorsements would be of any greater encyclopedic value than a list of favorite foods? She may indeed have brought back a new trend, but if that's the only impact she's had with her endorsements, then that's worth a sentence in the main article; not a list by itself. — Ed! (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The subsequent edits have done nothing to convince me the article should be kept. — Ed! (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being paid to hawk a product is not an "endorsement," and I see no reliable evidence indicating that Lopez has any role in selecting, for example, which of the manufacturer's perfumes she will participate in advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. So from what I'm seeing here, mention of her endorsing things is valid, certainly, but why does it need a separate article to specifically list the products when the section in the main article already mentions the subject and appears to also note the the more notable ones specifically (which it probably should, being relevant and all)? Unfortunately that makes this list seem like it'd be redundant at best, random at worst.  — Isarra (talk)  22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – I think WP:NOTDIR applies here, or perhaps WP:NOTADVOCATE. It just doesn't seem to be encyclopedic material. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning merge - At the very least, the title should be changed to List of paid product endorsements and products launched by Jennifer Lopez. More seriously, since this is a short article, referenced information could be merged to the Jennifer Lopez article. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Ed this article isn't going anywhere encyclopaedic.I would also think WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NNPOV apply here.These products are being advertised on the basis that they are associated with J-Lo. An article re-affirming that connection only serves to further advertise the products - the list can never be neutral because is no real commentary on the significance (both for good and bad) of this association.A single paragraph in Jennifer Lopez could cover the key points neutrally - If the list is to serve some navigational purpose then a separate argument could be made for a "Products associated with Jennifer Lopez" Category instead - it wont necessarily be accepted but it could be made. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice ad. Delete CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 09:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a blog, advertising space or repository for random trivia. Wholly inappropriate article doktorb wordsdeeds 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * delete - I cannot see this as being anything other than a backdoor approach to avoid WP:NOTADVERT. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - backdoor WP:SPAM; a list for the sake of a list. ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, do not delete. I don't see this as an advertisement - the point that she endorses a vast number of perfumes might actually decrease the ad value; in any case that's not our priority.  That said, there's little excuse to present this as a big article rather than as a small paragraph, and in turn, no reason not to fold that paragraph into her biographical article with zero loss of content. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a list of products she endorses isn't notable. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - A simple WP:NOT applies here. An eneclopedia is neither an advertising agency nor a platform from which to sell product like a carnival salesman. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 9 March 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.