- 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 (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS Russavia (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are all high-profile products by major brand names, each of which have not insignificant seperate claims to fame. It should not be hard to form good articles about each, should someone actually take the time to do non-Google research (newspaper archives should be a good start). The nominator, however, does not appear to have done any of these, and has just whacked a bunch of perfume articles on AfD. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Yves Saint-Laurent (brand) which doesn't mention fragrances yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I am unable to appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Click the blue text. It reveals more information. JERRY talk contribs 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it was published by Yves_Saint-Laurent_(brand), which is enough for me. They are a well known perfume manufacturer. It is especially notable given that it is the first male scent published by Yves_saint_laurent since the new ownership came by. This looks like a no brainer. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t16:08z
- 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.