Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenty Beauty: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Fenty Beauty: hoo boy, keep
333cale (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 13:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Fenty Beauty]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 13:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Fenty Beauty]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
*'''Keep''' Oh goodness. Ok well for one I owe Ritchie a debt of thanks as I wouldn’t have seen this except for their beginning the close which affected a different entry on my watchlist. I’ll make it my job to at least begin a broad expansion based on the virtually limitless sources, which describe the international cultural significance of this topic; maybe can get to DYK before the end of women’s history month. Two though, good lord y’all do we have a serious editor demographics problem and I haven’t the faintest idea how we’re going to make the level of progress we need on that. It’s absolutely nuts this entry is in such a state or should even seem like an AfD candidate. Actually...why did it? Even if one knew nothing more than what’s in the nomination, wouldn’t it be a valid search term appropriately redirected to Rihanna? I don’t see from edit history that we’re here because that was already attempted and reverted... I wouldn’t mention it since in any case here we are, but rushing to deletion may affect editor retention and I do think this example underscores how ill the project can afford that. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 16:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Oh goodness. Ok well for one I owe Ritchie a debt of thanks as I wouldn’t have seen this except for their beginning the close which affected a different entry on my watchlist. I’ll make it my job to at least begin a broad expansion based on the virtually limitless sources, which describe the international cultural significance of this topic; maybe can get to DYK before the end of women’s history month. Two though, good lord y’all do we have a serious editor demographics problem and I haven’t the faintest idea how we’re going to make the level of progress we need on that. It’s absolutely nuts this entry is in such a state or should even seem like an AfD candidate. Actually...why did it? Even if one knew nothing more than what’s in the nomination, wouldn’t it be a valid search term appropriately redirected to Rihanna? I don’t see from edit history that we’re here because that was already attempted and reverted... I wouldn’t mention it since in any case here we are, but rushing to deletion may affect editor retention and I do think this example underscores how ill the project can afford that. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 16:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The international launch of this brand was major and extremely culturally significant. The depth of coverage is not an issue at all to meet notability guidelines. [[User:333cale|333cale]] ([[User talk:333cale|talk]]) 00:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:19, 27 March 2018

Fenty Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The brand was established by Rihanna and has terrific amount of press mentions. I have doubts however that it has depth of coverage and comply with notability guidelines for brands or companies. The brand was established in 2017 so probably also WP:TOOSOON Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh goodness. Ok well for one I owe Ritchie a debt of thanks as I wouldn’t have seen this except for their beginning the close which affected a different entry on my watchlist. I’ll make it my job to at least begin a broad expansion based on the virtually limitless sources, which describe the international cultural significance of this topic; maybe can get to DYK before the end of women’s history month. Two though, good lord y’all do we have a serious editor demographics problem and I haven’t the faintest idea how we’re going to make the level of progress we need on that. It’s absolutely nuts this entry is in such a state or should even seem like an AfD candidate. Actually...why did it? Even if one knew nothing more than what’s in the nomination, wouldn’t it be a valid search term appropriately redirected to Rihanna? I don’t see from edit history that we’re here because that was already attempted and reverted... I wouldn’t mention it since in any case here we are, but rushing to deletion may affect editor retention and I do think this example underscores how ill the project can afford that. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The international launch of this brand was major and extremely culturally significant. The depth of coverage is not an issue at all to meet notability guidelines. 333cale (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]