Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipstick Prophets

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick Prophets

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

I'm nominating this article not because I'm 100% certain it isn't notable, but because it is very difficult at this point to prove that it is - and even in that case, the entire text would need to be rewritten from scratch. The article consists of an uncited lead, along with a section listing print magazine mentions with no text cited from any of the articles in question. Additionally, the company it refers to seems to no longer exist, as the previously listed "official site" is now a company that produces textiles rather than a fashion line as described in the article - which means further press for the brand is unlikely. While I will see if I can locate some of the magazines mentioned to see whether these features meet WP:RS, I am hoping that some conclusion can be made here - whether it involves deletion or a major overhaul to turn it into a useful article. I did my best to remove glaring issues such as peacock language and non-RS-compliant sourcing, but I'm afraid there wasn't much I could do to fix it without access to those print sources. Feather Jonah (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AFD nom was missing some things so I added them and changed the header level to comply with deletion log page formatting. Ordinarily, it's considered good form to advise the original article creator that the article has been nominated. However, in this particular instance, User:Tallulah13 has not edited since May 2009 so the likelihood that she would notice the message is pretty low. Probably okay as is. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's my first time doing this - I tried to follow the AfD tutorial. Feather Jonah (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! If you have the Twinkle tools the XFD tool is very good for AFDs. Cheers! Stalwart111 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely non-notable topic, failing WP:GNG certainly. I performed a Google search, and didn't find any reliable sources to identify the subject itself at all. Sorry. TBr and ley 02:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally non-notable mess of an article. Lacking in any real information whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the ghits I see are from buzzfeed. Beyond that it seems the actual company is no longer in business (?). Fails WP:PRODUCT. The designer seems to be borderline notable but that's not in consideration here. §FreeRangeFrog 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation. Very weak sources in Google News, all seem to be passing mentions alongside other brands/designers in lists. Problematic because of the list of print sources given, we have no way of knowing that these aren't simply photoshoots where a garment from the label was included. I suspect "coverage" is a swanky way of saying a T-shirt or whatever was in a photograph. However, the "full stories", "editorial spreads" and "articles" (as distinct from "coverage") sound like they could probably qualify as RS, so if someone has access to these magazines/issues, they could probably create a much more acceptable article. These are the promising-sounding sources from the article, just in case someone wants to recreate the article and has access to back issues of these magazines.

Tattoo Savage 2 page spread covering Lipstick Prophets in April 2009 issue, pages 18/19.
Inked magazine: article on Barone & LP in Sept/Oct 2008 issue, article by Rachel Aydt, pages 72/73; editorial in Feb 2008 issue.
Paper (magazine) feature on Barone, Feb. 2007, page 76, article by Johnathan Durbin.
Punk Rock Confidential feature about LP, Spring 2007, article by Sunny Channel; also editorial in Spring 2008.
Alternative Press "full story" on LP in issue 214, article by Leslie Simon, May 2006, page 74.

Mabalu (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2012 (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.