Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaningful Beauty


 * 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   delete. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaningful Beauty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be yet another beauty products company product push. Non notable org, products, and an advert to boot Fiddle   Faddle  22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice against appropriate recreation - Hideously promotional/advertising-y. The company is POSSIBLY notable but a what I am seeing on Highbeam, etc, seems to pretty much be the same press releases repeated over and over again or articles that use the words "meaningful beauty" in context. Not the easiest to find sources on, and what there is on the page needs blowing up and starting over again, in a MUCH less promotional/spammy format. Mabalu (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed a few issues thus far. I added a link from the Cindy Crawford page to the Meaningful Beauty page so it is no longer an orphan. I also fixed the disambiguation error. I have no problem doing a complete re-write to make it more to your liking. I certainly didn't try to write it in a pr-ish way and I'm sorry it reads to you in that fashion. I'll get started on it today. Thank you, alvb (talk) 5 October 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete under WP:G11 with no prejudice against recreation, or userfy because article currently is not fit for Wikipedia. Maybe should fix it in their own userspace and submit it as a draft, but if not, speedy del. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2014 (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.