Talk:Curious (perfume)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

from VfD:

This page follows fits the following "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" from the Vote for Deletion policy. It should be merge back into the Britney Spears article. --YUL89YYZ 13:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. couldn't agree more. --Bucephalus 13:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Ferkelparade π 14:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You could write a ton about Britney Spears, why clutter her article with info about the perfume? Let people write a proper article on it. Everyking 15:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 16:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Britney Spears. I don't see that enough could be written about it to justify it having its own article. David Johnson 16:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Can't seem to find any other fragrance page on Wikipedia. (Are there any others?) Alren 17:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to curiosity. - SimonP 18:43, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to curiosity. Another predicate nominative that thinks it's a discussion. Geogre 19:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering this subject was already mentioned in the main Britney Spears article since at least the 21st. rernst 19:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to curiosity. For what it's worth, while real-time search was working I scanned the titles of all 222 Wikipedia articles containing the word "perfume", and while there are some general/historical usages such as Musk, there were no other articles about specific perfume brands. As for precedent, Elizabeth Taylor has "She also launched two perfumes, "Passion" and "White Diamonds," that together earn an estimated $200,000,000 in annual sales.", with neither name linked. Niteowlneils 21:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Another comment on precedents: Chanel No.5, which is probably the most widely known perfume brand name in the world, is currently a redirect to Gabrielle Chanel -- Ferkelparade π 00:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support redirecting to curiosity. -Sean Curtin 00:54, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to curiosity as the info is already in Britney Spears siroχo 02:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Come on, people, it's a famous thing, and I think a reasonable article could be written about it. Marketing, popularity, association with Britney, etc. A redirect to Britney Spears will kill all that, because that much detail would be silly there. Not to mention we have a good picture for this article, which we shouldn't lose. Everyking 03:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. Unremarkable commercial product. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It has not been substantially expanded during the discussion period. Unlike Everyking, I don't see a useful way to expand this either. Redirect to Britney Spears. If/when someone has much more to say, the redirect page can be overwritten then. Rossami (talk) 18:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

From VfU[edit]

This was redirected to Britney Spears per VfD consensus (I cast the only dissenting vote), but as I feel strongly that it should have an article, I ask the community to reconsider. My understanding is that the perfume is quite popular and well-known, and so it deserves an article. Everyking 23:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to bolster my case a bit, from People magazine: "Britney's perfume is currently the top seller in Amazon's beauty products. It is selling from $20-$45. It has been at #1 for all of November." (posted here). Everyking 01:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But that doesn't make any sort of case that there's any more to be said about the perfume than you have currently in the article. I realise that by saying that I have pretty much given you a cue to write 50kb of "information" about the perfume including week-by-week sales figures, the opinions of Britney on her perfume, a description of the packaging and a nice POV description of how lovely it smells.Dr Zen 02:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No deletion ever took place here - everything is still in the edit history. Snowspinner 00:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I know, but he's seeking to override a VFD consensus, in which case it would be rude to change it without consulting anyone. Ambi 01:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support un-redirecting. This is the sort of stuff that can get deleted now that VFD is too large to really follow, and that really should never have been deleted. Ambi 01:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain redirect until someone has assembled a few good paragraphs about the fragrance within Britney Spears#Curious fragrance line article. Then start talking about breaking it out into an article of its own. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Just removed my own long, unneeded explanation here...that what Everyking is referring to below... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC))
That's not the point. Of course I know all these things, and I'm a sysop myself to boot. The point is that I'm not willing to revert the redirect in violation of community consensus. So I'm trying to get a new consensus that we should indeed have an article. Yes, it was a substub, but it had an image and plenty of potential to grow. Everyking 01:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, well, even if I added enough info to justify a breakout, the consensus was that it should be a redirect, so wouldn't the right process still be to come here with it? Besides, it doesn't make any sense to me to redirect it when as a topic it seems perfectly fit to have an article of its own, and I think that discourages expansion for no good reason. Everyking 01:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On a second glance, it appears that it's just been deleted because it was a substub. In that case, I don't think it'd hurt to just un-redirect it, as long as it was replaced with a few sentences of decent content. If I'd caught this while on VFD, I'd have done the rewrite myself. Ambi 02:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion, if it can be demonstrated that the page can be more than a sub-stub. - SimonP 03:17, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, at the very least I could add the info in that People excerpt above. But I know a lot more could be said: Britney's association with it, marketing, and so on. You could write at least a few good paragraphs if you knew what you were talking about. Everyking 12:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Best way to demonstrate that it can be more than a substub is actually to do it. Best place to expand it is in its context on the Britney Spears page. You can tinker with there it a bit at a time and there and nobody is going to fuss about it. Certainly the people interested in the Britney Spears article will be sympathetic. It may or may not be a notable perfume in itself, but it is certainly one of Britney Spears' notable recent achievements.
Why are people so eager to create tiny new articles? How are people most likely to find this information? Given that "curious" is a common word, text searches aren't going to work too well. However, it is 90% certain that people seeking information on the perfume will try Britney Spears. Curious, currently a redirect to Curiosity, could become a disambiguation page, in which case it could just as well point to Britney Spears#Curious fragrance line as anywhere else. Apart from Wikipedians wise in the lore of naming convention, how many people are going to be lucky enough to try Curious (perfume) rather than Curious perfume or "Curious" perfume or Curious Britney Spears perfume or Curious perfume brand or Britney's perfume or Curious fragrances or Curious, the perfume? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redirects are our friend. Summary style is also our friend. Ambi 02:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support leaving it as a redir. Elizabeth Taylor's better known perfumes don't have articles, nor does ANY other brand of perfume. Perfume makers have articles, but we don't need articles for each of their brands. Add the pic to Britney's page if that's the main reason to un-redir. Niteowlneils 00:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine, I added the picture. But this should be a standalone topic. Redirecting it is an artificial limitation on its growth. We need articles on all kinds of notable perfumes. Everyking 02:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Particularly notable brands of perfume should have articles, and I feel that this fits the bill. Ambi 02:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain redirect, full stop, period, end of story - What Dpbsmith said, in spades. --Calton 02:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Dpbsmith is right. Jayjg 04:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion as soon as 200 words on the perfume exist in Britney Spears. Snowspinner 05:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's shameful if we don't have any articles on any particular perfumes! It's a very clear example of Wikipedia's innate cultural bias: hardly anyone who might be interested in perfume comes here, yet the perfume industry is an important and interesting one, and some particular perfumes have intriguing tales to tell (some of which can be found in the wonderful The Emperor of Scent (ISBN 0375507973)). Some are downright famous, like "Chanel No. 5" -- which Baz Luhrmann has just done a very important commercial for. Anyway, I vote undelete. Let it have an article if it's contemporary cultural phenomenon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is quite facinating because it implies the editors involved feel the VfD vote was binding even though "redirect" was a minority position. Probably because redirects plus deletes formed a consensus. If the binding power of VfD redirect votes is real, I would like to see the policy stated clearly in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It would save considerable effort for articles that were narrowly kept by including merge or redirect votes but where some editors invovled don't see this as binding, insisting that "Votes of deletion just decides to keep or delete." At any rate, I agree with Dpbsmith although would support breaking out if the treatment in Britney Spears grows lengthy. Cool Hand Luke 11:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re VfD voting. I hadn't really thought this through. Here's how it looks to me. The acting sysop is supposed to judge whether there is a rough consensus for deletion, the guideline being a 2/3 vote for deletion. Votes for redirects are obviously neither simple votes to delete or simple votes to keep. So, I think according to the process it is the sysop's judgement call as to how to handle votes for "redirect."
Now, any article that is not deleted, including those never nominated for VfD, is subject to "ruthless" editing. This includes merging the text into another article and converting the original article to a redirect. It also includes reverting those changes and turning it back into a separate article. These actions are regulated not by VfD rules but by ordinary editing rules and Wikiquette and judgement and common sense. (Or not, as as the case may be).
If an article is kept after a VfD debate ,and if anyone eyeballing the vote perceives that there were a lot of votes to redirect, and that the article would have been deleted had these been counted as "deletes,"—well, then, it is obvious that there are a lot of people that have definite opinions on the matter. And the article is probably on their watchlist. Under those circumstances, anyone wanting to break the material out into a separate article had better do some consensus-building, not because of any formal policy, but because of the obvious possibility of bad feelings and edit wars if the clear opinions of various WIkipedians are ignored.
So, I'd say that User:Everyking was showing sound judgement. Whether the discussion should have been conducted here or on an article's talk page I'm not sure, but I don't think it matters. The point is, I don't think policy comes into it. And in general we should seek true consensus, not parliamentary-style rulemaking. VfD votes should always effectively be voice votes, for example. When you need to start counting to see whether there's 68% or 65% "delete," and agonizing over what votes should be counted what way, that's not a Good Thing. My unasked-for $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can't say I follow your logic that it is valid to interpret a vote to redirect as a vote to delete. It isn't; it's a vote that that topical term is noteworthy enough to be acknowledged as a term. In order for a redirect to occur, the article object with that title has to exist. Therefore deletion is not compatible with redirection. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
I've moved this to the talk page. In my opinion there needs to be consensus for a particular viewpoint to be binding upon us. Unfortunately, this is routinely ignored when as little as 60% of users voting to delete is considered to be enough "rough consensus" to delete an article and any recreation of that article. But I see no reason we should extend that to redirection. Furthermore, a vote to redirect may or may not be a vote to delete, and a vote to delete may or may not be a vote to redirect. If you find more than one option acceptable, then you should state it. There are some cases where the best solution is to keep or delete, and redirecting would be a distant third. In the case of this particular article, I believe it should be kept as a redirect unless and until it is greater than 1K in size, using Wikipedia:Article size as a guideline. anthony 警告 21:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Where's the article?[edit]

All that for this? It is so not a "contemporary cultural phenomenon" that all the editors who fought against the deletion that the consensus was for can write is that it is a perfume with Britney Spears' name on it! This couldn't be a sentence in the Britney Spears article. And be aware, Everyking, that reams of sales figures and a quote of Britney saying "I always wanted a perfume" would not constitute a proper article.Dr Zen 02:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be a proper article, but I don't have any intention of writing it myself. I don't know much about her perfume. But I think it's a subject worth writing about for anybody who wants to. Everyking 02:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please don't simply revert my change, Everyking. This stuff is already in the Britney article. Break it out when it's needed, if it's ever needed.Dr Zen 02:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that discourages expansion for no good reason. But fine, have it your way, no big deal. Everyking 02:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do discourage expansion for no good reason! It's not a good thing in itself. Bloat is not necessarily attractive. Dr Zen 05:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Didn't you vote to keep Frost War? Everyking 06:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I did emphasise "in itself". I don't have a problem with big, so long as it's beautiful. My opinion on whether Frost war was beautiful sadly wasn't shared widely enough. It's a pity that the editors of this encyclopaedia tend to be so anti-interwebnet. The history of flaming is interesting in my opinion, as are many other things that pass beneath the notice of many. I just don't include Britney's perfume in that. However, you write something that isn't just a pisstake, jammed full of sales data, but is an elegant discussion of it qua phenomenon, and I'd not only endorse it, I'd work on it.Dr Zen 06:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sales data is important information. Is an article better off without it, you think? Anyway, I don't understand for the life of me how a person can think Frost War deserves an article before a famous perfume does. Everyking 06:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We disagree over the value of sales data. I think "it was the topselling single in 2004" is worth noting but "it was number 64 in the charts for a week" is not. The latter is truly ephemeral. I had a headache yesterday -- ephemeron; I had the worst headache I have ever had -- noteworthy. Report all of the former and you have ugly bloat -- way TMI. That's how I see it. I realise that you are not quite as selective.

And look, I don't think it's a question of "deserving" an article. Read my user page. You'll see that far from thinking that there must be some standard for subjects to meet, I'm more interested in how interesting things are to talk about. There just isn't much to say about Britney's perfume. Prove me wrong if you can. I'll barnstar you if you can make a decent article out of Curious (perfume) without using ephemera to pad it out, the way you have so egregiously padded your article on Autobiography, which if you were willing to allow others to work on it could become something quite fabulous. Dr Zen 06:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I happen to think that an internet flame war is completely uninteresting, while an analysis of the promotion, sales and various attributes of a perfume from Britney would be somewhat interesting. Of course, you may disagree, but you see there how good a criteria "interesting" is. Things are interesting to different people. Anyway, if I was to write a good article on this perfume you'd just delete half of it on the grounds that it's ephemera and you'd revert me when I tried to restore it. Judging by history, anyway; you could swear off that kind of thing and I'd feel a lot more comfortable working on these kinds of topics. Everyking 06:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that what's interesting is subjective. I think it's as good a criterion as any other, which I guess shows you what I think of criteria on the whole. You know damned well that if you padded this article with ephemera you'd get away with it because no one cares enough about the subject to go the full nine yards stopping you. It's a pity that you do it, though, because you're not creating beautiful articles with your approach. Dr Zen 07:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, Zen, read this:
"Curious, the first fragrance by internationally acclaimed music star Britney Spears was the #1 beauty product sold on Amazon.com, which is linked through Sephora, for the month of November,' announced E. Scott Beattie, Chairman and CEO of Elizabeth Arden. 'Additionally, it is currently the top- selling fragrance in U.S. department stores.' The fragrance launched in September 2004. 'curious [BRITNEY SPEARS(TM)] will be our number one launch for the fall season and, without a doubt, potentially one of the biggest launches we've had with any fragrance-period,' says Debbie Murtha, Senior Vice President and General Merchandise Manager of Cosmetics and Fragrances for May Co." (quoted here)
That doesn't warrant an article?! Everyking 19:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It merits mention, dude, but that's a different thing. Dr Zen 23:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)