Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phytocosmetics

Phytocosmetics

[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)

Is there any reason that this should not be a sentence in cosmetics and an entry on Wiktionary?

It is likely to remain a source of stealth advertising and OR. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Reference 1 looks non-RS (I don't read Portuguese, but the page layout is not encouraging); the other references appear to be bogus or at the very least improperly cited and formatted. There are real sources on the subject out there: [1], [2], [3], but they're swamped out by SEO garbage and sites trying to sell something, and it would take work and a discerning eye to write a good article on the topic, and this one isn't good. The topic may be significant but the article needs far too much work to keep as is. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose draftify. There is no point to draftifying a seven year old article! No one ever works on draftified articles for old ones. No one. I haven't searched for sources, but this seems like a hard topic to write a full article on. Maybe worth a mention somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, there's 3 hits in Gscholar directly talking about it, [4], [5], [6]. I thought we were discussing deletion, I mean draft if you want, but it's a notable topic. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A notable topic need not have its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No inline sources, what is there is poor at best, there's 3 hits in Gscholar is not a reason for a stand-alone article, and also WP:TNT on the article in its present form. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is terrible and I think there is an excellent case for TNTing any article where no one has bothered to explain what the subject even is over the course of years. But that is not the deletion policy. Sources don't have to be in an article to show it is notable, they only need to be shown to exist. Phytochemistry is a thing, and phytocosmetics are a suitably large part of that subject that they spawn multiple textbooks. E.g. Botanicals: A Phytocosmetic Desk Reference (1998) or Phytocosmetics and Cosmetic Science (2021). This is not a delete. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion, but otherwise I'd support it. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we don't have to give this subject its own page. Is there a case for merging with Phytochemistry? All we really have beyond phytochemistry is the dictionary definition: phytocosmetics is concerned with the cosmetic properties of botanicals. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a sentence or two to cosmetics per nom. Definitely do not redirect or merge to phytochemistry, that is very different. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]