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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty work[edit]

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

An essay which aspires to the status of a dictionary definition. TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is obviously written to argue a particular WP:POV, with vague claims like "Such products are often priced higher when marketed to women, who are willing to pay more due to the social pressure to appear physically attractive" presented as fact rather than as generalizations made by the cited source. Apart from such surmountable problems, the article subject seems amply covered by articles such as Cosmetics, and the actual content of the article is belongs under Gender inequality. "Beauty work" isn't really a separate subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOR. Tacyarg (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, Martin IIIa, and Tacyarg. POV fork of body image. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2018 (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.