Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Wish Fairy Dance


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Secret Wish Fairy Dance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utterly promotional article about a commercial product. The best sources given are a puff piece in Huffington Post Style and a review in a beauty blog. The reflist is fleshed out with some trade press advertorials and references to the company's own press. Slashme (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just on the value of sources, I would say that the Fragrantica source is probably the most widely used when referencing perfumes (in USA), definitely better than the blog post. Regarding the puff piece, this speaks directly to the fascinating grip that something as simple as the mixture of aromas can have on society. The fact that the piece is so oulandishly loud (title is a bit intense, but there is substance) is testament to this cultural phenomenon in itself ironically. More sources added as well. Fashionista55 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Contest the deletion, fail to see how it fails on the charge that it is a promotional article in any way. It is quite objective throughout and I would refer participants to several other fashion houses whose fragrance collections are indeed a wonderful and niche part of Wikipedia (see: Glow by JLo, Chantilly (fragrance), Coco (perfume), L'eau d'Issey, Light Blue (fragrance) and Amarige amongst hundreds of others). Further sources now added but comparatively, this article is much better sourced and I would state specifically that there should not be any issue in citing a company's press per the wiki guidelines. Indeed it is extremely common and expected and I refer you to Chevrolet Volt for example which references General Motors variously. The study of fragrances, their compositions and the captivity they have on the human imagination is quite literally an entire area of expertise requiring much research, knowledge and insight. The area of study is completely fascinating and the collective merit of articles on the subject add to Wikipedia's value (see: Perfumer, Aroma compound, History of perfume and List of perfumes) Fashionista55 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfectly reasonable to have articles about notable perfumes, but this particular perfume doesn't seem to have been discussed in detail in multiple reliable independent sources, so I don't think it's notable by Wikipedia standards. It's acceptable to refer to company sources for specific facts that are not contentious, but they don't establish notability. The fact that the study of fragrances is important and notable doesn't have any relevance to this particular fragrance's notability. --Slashme (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another reference added to respond to doubts raised by the Huffington Post (though it is unfair to implicitly equate their fashion coverage with their coverage of other topics they may or may not promulgate) speaking directly to this fragrance and its notability from the South China Morning Post. A large portion of the article is dedicated to the fragrance, some of which I will quote for the purpose of contesting the claim of non notability: ...Sui was in the city to launch Fairy Dance, the last instalment in a trilogy of perfumes known as Secret Wish... The launch represents yet another mini-milestone in what’s been one long and rewarding career of them. Sui, whose exuberant designs meld influences as disparate as Victorian cowboy, Andy Warhol and Finnish textile print, is among an elite to have received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Council of Fashion Designers of America. Here is another international source speaking directly to this fragrance from Japanese Vogue . Further here is a industry report from May 2012 covering Fairy Dance and its tie in to sales for the distribution company . Further examples exist on notable coverage, especially in Asian media, but this is also notable in the USA. Fashionista55 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Style magazine article is a heavily promotional piece about Sui, which mentions the perfume in the context of the fact that she was in town to launch the product. That doesn't establish independent notability at all. The "beauty packaging" article barely mentions it in passing, and the Japan Vogue is basically a list of perfumes: typical run-of-the-mill product reporting. --Slashme (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a promotional piece that does not establish third-party notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See above Fashionista55 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Fashionista55 - It isn't necessary or helpful in an AFD to refute every Delete. It doesn't increase the likelihood that any of them will change their !votes, but closing is based on strength of arguments anyway.  Tendentious behavior at AFD is sometimes taken to WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – promotional spam lacking in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. minimal references. Just disguised advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should mention this is part of a series of articles about half a dozen of the firm's perfumes in the identical format, most of which have been listed for speedy G11.  DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 February 2017 (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.