Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luscious Cosmetics (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luscious Cosmetics

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Brochure article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROMO. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 21:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found. appears promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was even more of a brochure before press releases and non-verifying stuff was removed. TNT at the last deletion debate was the right answer, and still is. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (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.