Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer's Eve


 * 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.  Jujutacular  talk 21:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Summer's Eve

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable. Also, article consists solely of a product list and a few pop culture refs cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 07:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable secondary sources adress this subject in the detail sufficient to write an article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. No sources in addition to it's homesite. I think non-notable as well. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confess 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the vast majority of online content is advertisements and regurgitated press releases, there is some coverage (i.e. ). The product has been around for quite awhile and is certainly well known.  The article as it exists now is not entirely helpful, but I think it can be improved fairly easily.  There are WP articles on products which are far less well known.  Snotty Wong   confess 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Was notable enough to spoofed on Saturday Night Live, it really is a well-known product, and its 1980s commercials have been a source of amusement.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ETA: and i totally forgot about this recent coverage (New York Times) (blog summary of brouhaha here: )--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking over the first of many pages for a Google news search, I found they had an ad that got ample coverage. They also have been featured in many notable things from songs to comedy sketches, that part of the article erased for reasons unknown.  This company is in the news and elsewhere enough to be notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The erasure is on me and I made it clear in my reasoning; all of the uses were defamatory to the product (usually using it as a euphemism for an insult or to add a crass part to a song) and added absolutely nothing to the article, it isn't doing anything for notability except "#1 product in brand class we can use for an example". Also, we don't source YouTube references, especially to SNL skits (which will eventually be removed from there anyways).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked the youtube clip for everyone's entertainment, not for inclusion in the article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: a blog post, a short Q&A on a single ad, a youtube video and a briefmention does not add up to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many more sources out there, you can't just assume based on what's in the article to make a conclusion its not notable. E.g., just the recent controversy was widely covered, not just by the New York Times Q&A cite: BNET (CBS business news), AOL News , Adweek, Salon.com , Mediabistro.com , The Consumerist , Jezebel , etc. --Milowent • talkblp-r 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs & online glossies, by the look of things. Nothing particularly weighty (Salon would be about the best), and all about the same single ad (WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course those sources are all about the single ad-because that's what i said they were. I didn't say that was all sources about the product, because it is surely not; the product has been around for maybe 30+ years.  I don't care enough about feminine hygiene products to keep searching, though.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  15:09, 17 November 2010 (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.