Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempt, Tease and Touch

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 delete and redirect to Sugababes#Merchandise. Daniel (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tempt, Tease and Touch

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am uncertain if this meets the WP:GNG requirement, specifically the part on significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I expanded this article back in 2016 and it went through a successful GAN at that time, but I am uncertain if it is really notable anymore. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Sugababes#Merchandise. Article does not satisfy WP:GNG, fails WP:PRODUCT, and is a case of WP:PROMO. A review of the sources and the result is rather clear:
- Refs 4, 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26 are unreliable, non-secondary, promo sources. They are used to provide information regarding the perfume's ingredients, price, and merchandise stuff, which is WP:PROMO and WP:PRICE
- Refs 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20 are not flagged as unreliable, but they are not independent, non-trivial sources, which fail WP:GNG criterion of independent sources (advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent)
- The critical reception section is rather cherry-picking and puffery ("Easy Lifestyle" and Mirror are not generally reliable). Single-quotes from Glamour also do not help with substance.

— HĐ (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I actually closed this as delete but want to relist it for further eyes. To be perfectly honest I find HD's analysis of the sourcing to be persuasive. With this being a listed "Good Article", I would like a little bit more input personally before pulling the trigger. (Not that GA's get any special safety net, more I think unnecessary issues can be avoided by relisting in this particular case.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- while there are certainly celebrity perfumes that do receive significant news coverage this is not one of them. Did not find any additional sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GA or not, this perfume does not appear to have recieved significant coverage. I fully agree with HD's analysis of the sources. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:21, 10 February 2021 (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.