Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love bracelet (Cartier)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love bracelet (Cartier)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PRODUCT. A specific article for product might not be required as it may be covered (if notable) into the article on company. Also this does not seems to be a very notable product with almost no independent sources telling all good & bad aspects of the product. Article seems more like a promotional page using wiki for advertisement. Shekhar 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Delete. Individual pages are made for notable specific technologies, appliances, works, that sort of thing. This suggests a fan creation, or as you suggested a corporate creation. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Wikipedia is constantly misused for corporate promotions as articles in it are ranked 1 in Google search. Such promotional articles degrade wiki's as well as Google's reputation.--Shekhar 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve, or maybe merge and redirect. I can understand the concerns raised above about promotional content. On the other hand, there is legitimate evidence for the long term notability of this product line, such as this 2006 New York Times article ("the most successful collection in Cartier’s history"). A possible alternative would be to merge some of the content from this page, with independent sourcing such the Times article, to the Timeline section of Cartier (jeweler); but ultimately there may be more valid and sourceable content than will fit neatly there. (The article Cartier Tank presents a similar problem.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning towards improving and keeping myself. From what I can see via articles like this Vogue article, this Express article, and this Town & Country article, the bracelet is considered to be quite iconic. The Daily Mail also did one of their pieces on it and while I consider the DM to be about as reliable as a rowboat with a hole in it, it's still considered to be a RS for the most part on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2015 (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.