- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, unverifiable list of lip gloss flavors. A lot of the ones on here I can't find anywhere, like the arctic flavors. Delete as unverifiable. The article Lip gloss has a decent enough summary on Lip Smackers already. Metros232 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Yomangani 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable brand, hopefully it can be cleaned up and made more an article and less a list. Notability is not in question: I get 81,900 Google hits for "Lip Smackers" (in quotes) and a further 32,800 for "Lip Smacker", (also in quotes). The actual official name seems to be just "Smackers", which brings 329,000 hits but many unrelated. It has a 1200+ member fanlisting, and even gets a handful of Google News hits (pretty trivial ones, admittedly, but it does get press). Definitely notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for info:it had a wikify tag put on it nearly as soon as it was created and hasn't been touched since (admittedly that was only 10 days ago but that's nearly a lifetime on WP), so I don't see much interest from anybody cleaning it up. Yomangani 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as listcruft and for WP:V issues. Also mention in the main lip gloss article is fine, but not notable enough for its own article Bwithh 16:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lip Smackers used to have an article [1]. But on April 19th this was changed to a redirect to lip gloss. Metros232 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On that basis it seems this article is wrongly named. Also, it appears to be an inferior version of the article that was merged without opposition. Yomangani 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Listcruft. AgentPeppermint 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a pretty wretched article, but the brand is notable and its a worthy topic. Vickser 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the contents of this article don't form a decent base for improvement. Nothing to salvage. Delete and start again if anybody wants to try. -- Whpq 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with no prejudice against an actual article at this title. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.