Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Cosmetics

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT your personal ad space. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why Natural Cosmetics? added to AfD -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha the page says see link below, but the link there is for "Pages for Deletion". LOL!!! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this page should be deleted. It is highly informative and essential to the topic of interest. There is no other page on Wikipedia regarding Natural Cosmetics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeyantz (talk • contribs)

True, but the problem is that Natural Cosmetics is not a topic of interest. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. Brian G. Crawford 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both spam, and not terribly subtle. Fan1967 02:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Icarus 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete both and tagged per A7. TheProject 04:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both pages as unencyclopædic in scope, tone and content.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Slow delete removed a7, as that only applies to people. This is a business.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering, but why doesn't A7 apply to companies? Would it not be similar to "club" and therefore qualify as "group of people" under A7? TheProject 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should. If the Sherman Antitrust Act can have its primary effect on unions being passed off as companies, A7 should work for companies too --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both as blatant spam. JIP | Talk 09:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete patent vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as spam. DarthVader 11:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both I might be persuaded that they should be merged into Cosmetics but definately not worth an article of its own. --Tango 12:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as advertising.--Isotope23 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad. ProhibitOnions 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ads, promoting specific brands, all minor. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam, Why Natural Cosmetics? qualifies for speedy as empty Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:38, 8 May 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.