Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Up For Ever


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buff  bills  7701  12:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Make Up For Ever

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about one of possibly  hundreds of brands directly or indirectly owned and/or retailed by LVMH. A CSD was declined after further sources were added. However, a close examination of all  sources shows:
 * Reuters is not about  the subject  at  all. 'Makeup Forever' has one of the shortest  and most  fleeting  mentions possible which cannot  possibly  be regarded as a reference in  any way.
 * Sephora, is a primary source about a chain  of retail stores owned by  LVMH. The mentions of Makeup Forever are only in the names of some of the products in  the online store. Nothing  here that  could even be broadly  construed as 3rd party  articles about  the subject.
 * philly.com Blog contribution by  fashion  writer Elisabeth Wellington to a possibly  not  very  notable local e-zine.
 * Nigel beauty another online store that sells Makeup Forever products. Does not  in  any  way confer notabilty. May  confirm  that  the brand exists, but  any  other mentions on  that  site are purely  advertorial.

Fails WP:GNG, and/or WP:ORG (for the brand). Notability of this product  is not  inherited from  the company(ies)  that  own(s) the brand or that  owns the retail outlets that  sell it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a shred of evidence of notability in the article, nor, as far as my searches have been able to find, anywhere else either. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Possible keep - My searches actually found some news articles like this (Italian Vogue) and this (Style.com/Condé Nast) and Google News searches found quite a bit such as this (Google News archive of 2006 Philippine Inquirer with original article here and another from that newspaper here, "How I Made It, Times Online" (dead link but original article available for purchase here), here (Sacramento Bee article) and NY Times article (from last year 2012). It seems that the person Dany Sanz is not notable as she is basically best known for this but it seems the company has received better coverage. I also found a brief article Elle and I also found a three page news article here from northjersey.com on November 6th. Google Books also found some results although all of them are not great though there is one 2003 Elle edition. I also found a W Magazine interview here. It seems they have received considerable coverage in the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates (found 1 dead article). I tried searching at Glamour magazine but found nothing. I performed another Google News search here which not only found French articles, it also found The Independent (UK), Manila Today (PH again), La Provence (short French article), PhilStar (short article but mentions creation partnership with Japanese laboratories), here (a little promotional-sounding Q&A but does have info) and finally this (Toronto Star article that mentions Sanz worked with Givenchy, Vuitton and Christian Dior). Additionally, it seems the LVMH means Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy so that may indicate some notability. In my last search, there are also some Italian articles but I don't speak Italian or French so I can't help with translating. The Philly.com article the nominator provided actually has some good info too, mentioning Sephora (a well-known cosmetics store has carried them since 2001). I'm still a little divided because (1) it doesn't seem they've received that much in-depth coverage but (2) there are still some articles from notable newspapers and magazines here. I would like to hear other users' comments whether this may be notable and, if so, should I begin improving.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Analysis of links:
 * Elle The magazine itself is a reliable source, but this is a product  listing  with  advertorial  in  its online store.
 * NorthJersey.com Local news site. About th opening  of a store.
 * Google search results page Not admissible.
 * The Independent Reliable source. Possibly adds to  notability but  could be paid-for advertorial
 * Manila Standard Today needs reading to  evaluate if this ads to  notability
 * LaProvence regional news and general purpose web site. Possibly  reliable. Article about the famous Moulin  Rouge using  the products.
 * The Philppine Star blog post/advertorial
 * The Philppine Star blog post
 * Toronto Star  Archives Don't  see any  mention  here.
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2013 (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) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * merge Not really appropriate for a separate article, but could be merged into a list of products. All fashion products get publicity. If they're a major product line, they should get an article, but I don;t see that here.  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think about redirecting to LVMH? SwisterTwister   talk  04:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but a line or two of content should be included.  DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'm willing to do it. SwisterTwister   talk  03:49, 21 November 2013 (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) 02:01, 24 November 2013 (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.