Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokey Eyes


 * 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   merge to Eye shadow. Nakon 04:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Smokey Eyes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. I also suspect the author is posting the article merely to drive traffic to their own blog and YouTube channel, which would constitute WP:SPAM. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Didn't realise the issue of the how to. I also was just starting to build the article which is a very valid article for wikipedia as its something very well known and should be included. I hadn't finished adding additional vidoes and images. I was also linking to a howto video and page if this is also not correct fine, I just don't see an issue with linking to a video on the subject - fine no howto in the article but surely thats not an issue if its a procedue and its just a link. Beauty and the Boutique is not my site for info also, its just one of the many I was going to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dynamite it - Agree with nom that as written this is a self promotional how to. The topic itself might potentially be notable though. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok If I remove all the external links will this fix the issue and People can then add images and more to the topic. I have removed all external reference to any site so presume the article now doesn't have any issue only needs some images etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Hmmmmm.... I think there still may be a few more issues. You're a new editor? If you'd like some help/advise, please say so. We'd be happy to help. ;-) NickCT (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment We have an article on cosmetics. We don't have articles on specific cosmetic techniques, and I don't see that we're likely to find any reliable sources to indicate that this particular cosmetic technique is notable enough to merit its own article. What we'd need is not links to a bunch of blogs telling people how to achieve this technique, but rather links to fashion or cosmetics magazines and the like point to the fact that this is a particularly notable technique.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "We don't have articles on specific cosmetic techniques" - True. I imagine the paucity of sources probably wouldn't make a stand-alone article viable. Something like this could potentially get merged into an existing article.... NickCT (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Strage as there is a page approved in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Eyes This is a very specific makeup look that someone could quite easily be searching for. I am not sure why there is an issue there are articles of all sorts of things which are part of another sector, makeup wouldn't cover it correctly but if the view is kill the article then fine, but also kill the DE wiki article as the point is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Yes I am a new editor - I also wanted to put some articles on Banknotes - British provincials and other but inder this view I couldn't as it should just go under banknotes ???? seems strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Although all different language Wikipedia versions are run by the same Wikimedia Foundation, they each operate under their own guidelines which are generally set by the community that uses them. de.wiki operates under a different set of guidelines than en.wiki, so the existence of an article there has no bearing on the validity of the article here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still a little neutral on deleting. If this could be well sourced, I think it might be reasonable to make it a stand-alone article. That said, it's not well sourced at the moment so I think it's a dynamite situation.
 * - If you really want to preserve this, message me on my talk page and we can discuss sourcing. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nick, not sure what you want me to message on your page, cannot see anywhere to do that, if you are talking about sources for info pages here are well known brands and websites talking about it. You may not know about this but it is a very well known look. http://www.loreal-paris.co.uk/trends-and-tutorials/tutorials/make-up-tutorial/get-the-look-smokey?gclid=CID8nt_Ko8QCFWEOwwodwAIA9w# http://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/makeup/a134/smoky-eyes/ http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/beauty/how-to/a31953/smoky-eye-hacks/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/08/gabrielle-union-makeup-best-celebrity-beauty_n_6631120.html This isn't someting I made up its something which people want to know about there are 11,900,000 results in google. If you want me to add these as a citation then fine, Like I say, I am new here and may have made a few mistakes but adding this into the system I don't feel was one of them, adding the "howto create the look maybe" although this because its a look, you cannot realy describe without saying how its done, or you can but its limited. I feel like a naughty person being told of when all I was doing was contributing but thats life I guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - In my earlier comment if you click on "talk page" you will go to my talk page. I will be happy to give you a bunch of advice there. ;-)
 * Regarding your sources; Wikipedia strives to be scholarly, and prefers sources which are more scholarly and reliable over those which might be less scholarly and/or less reliable. The loreal source is a little weak, being commercial. The marieclaire and cosmo refs are how-to guides. The huffingtonpost article is a start, but you really want is a book or article which just states plainly what smokey eyes are. Are there any text books on cosmotology or something like that which might describe them? NickCT (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment Google Books suggests that many published makeup tutorial books do include the term "smok(e)y eyes" (which I assume they will proceed to discuss about it more). The DEWP article de:Smokey Eyes (which I read under Google translate) is decently encyclopedic at least as a stub, and Aharveywiki could start with referencing the tone and style they used there.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The actual article isn't really great, and probably should be deleted, but Eye shadow seems like the natural home for a better-presented, properly sourced summary of this style of eye makeup. Mabalu (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Eye shadow, and speedily due to poor quality. This article does not appear to have any redeeming qualities in the offing. However, I can see it being an occasional search term, thus I support a redirect. Pax 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Eye shadow. It's possible there's a notable subject in here -- at least worth a mention at that article, but there's no usable content here. WP:TNT. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:30, 5 April 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.