Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchimie Forever

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 keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alchimie Forever

Contested prod - Beauty product line. Article has no explanation why this product is in anyway particular notable, i.e. more so than any of the other beauty products. The last sentence suggests that this is thinly veiled advertisement Passportguy (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional spam with no less than three different links included and use of first-person plural as it degenerates near the end. Drawn Some (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional tone is gone; article expansion with third party references to follow later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs considerable cleanup (which I plan to provide), but that is not a valid reason for deletion. This product line has received significant coverage in 3rd party sources (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Alchimie+Forever%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a). It has also appeared in virtually every major fashion magazine, often times with trivial coverage, often times with significant coverage. Additional, the product is quite popular as evidenced by 102K Google hits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. As cited above, Google News shows some significant third party coverage. Some of it seems press release material, or is trade-paper discussion of their business model with limited circulation and interest; but there is some genuinely neutral and objective mention, mostly in the context of a public-healthist scare about parabens. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Looks OK, kinda weak on the keep, and still feels spammy. Good job fixing it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even after cleanup the two references are the company's website. The subject of the article needs sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources and that hasn't been demonstrated. Press releases reprinted don't count. Nice job on the de-spamification though.Drawn Some (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just means we need to add the resources to the article. I checked the Goo link above, there's some good stuff there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: preliminary expansion is complete. I plan to do more more, in particular adding info + reviews about key products, but the current article should be good enough to meet Wikipedia standards anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this gets cleaned up to be less spammy, it still fails WP:CORP by a country mile. A mere 500,00 annual revenue and no significant third party coverage - such RS as have been adduced are incidental. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the article do you feel is still spammy?
CORP makes no mention of a revenue requirement. Even so, the figure is very out of date & I'm sure the company's revenue is much higher by now.
Which coverage do you think is trivial? Several sources used so far are entirely about the company and/or its products and there are several more that haven't even been used yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2009 (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.