Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural skin care (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Natural skin care
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Natural skin care is skin care using products branded or perceived as natural (often falsely so). And that's about all we can say from the reliable sources cited (i.e. none, though there are a couple of dodgy sources instead). It might be possible to write a Wikipedia compliant non-advertorial article on this subject. This is not that article, nor is it a good starting point for it. Blow it up and start over applies. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect Cosmetics, following Skin care, until that happens then.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 01:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Given that "natural skin care" is a marketing buzzword slogan akin to "Tastes great, less filling!", "I want my Maypo!", "You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent!", "Just do it!", "Where's the beef?", and the like, we have to be extremely careful about what kind of sources are used. And, honestly, I don't know if there's enough reliable sources that really comment on the success of this particular slogan. I would just get rid of the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't distinguish between skin care and "natural" skin care because the difference is meaningless, as noted above.  Since skin care currently redirects to cosmetics, a redirect from natural skin care to skin care after the deletion is reasonable.  Deli nk (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the extensive revisions that have occurred during this discussion (thanks FeatherPluma!), I think the content shouldn't just be deleted now. There is a discussion at Talk:Natural skin care about renaming and/or refocusing the article to address the concerns expressed here about the "natural" aspect.  Deli nk (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ( Comment  Edited & Updated:) Keep. The article is getting rewritten completely. An abundance of relevant reliable sources exists, addressing numerous aspects in a very reasonable, encyclopedically notable way. The lede alone now has 10 carefully used, reliable references; previously there were none. Admittedly, the topic itself has definitionally porous borders. However, that is true of many things; this is now spoken to clearly within the article, although the text needs more tweaking. I propose that with additional work this is going to be an article we keep. For brevity here, I will post the proposed upgrade path to the article Talk page. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep I want to applaud FeatherPluma's work so far and proposed way forward. I think perhaps this article can be rescued. Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is rescued, I would strongly suggest a broader focus than just "natural" skin care. How about moving the content to an article about skin care (currently a redirect) in general and expanding that, perhaps with content split from the skin care section of cosmetics?  It isn't good practice to have an article about a subtopic without having an article about the main topic. , pinging you just so you're aware of the suggestion.Deli nk (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another very sensible suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, / courtesy flag also to  who has commented: I had replied here. The response outgrew the core discussion of this AfD and I moved my thoughts to the article Talk page at Talk:Natural skin care. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2015 (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.