Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Oréal Kids

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. I'm also adding a cleanup tag, this needs some serious TLC for its dry and damaged state. Perhaps they have a product for that... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Oréal Kids

A non-notable list of cosmetic products that is not referenced. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an advertisement. Undeath (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined the speedy--while I see what you're saying about the marketing terms, they seem to just be part of the product names similar to how some shampoos are specified for "dry or damaged hair" or what have you. --jonny-m t 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (although I wouldn't describe it as advertising; rather I'll assume good faith). Axl (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite the company absolutely is notable, but the current version of the page is an advertisement and has no reliable sources. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company is notable like you say but that does not necessarily mean that this product range is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite per above statement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two above. Notable product line which received rather heavy advertising. Does need a rewrite, of course. 83.203.178.6 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article should be deleted first and then brought back if it's kept. The main reason is that it is far too much work to clean it up than it is to just start over on it. Undeath (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (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.