Deletion of Estée Lauder pleasures

Comment: As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as http://www.fabulousfragrances.com/ this, http://www.fragrancesoftheworld.com/ this, http://www.osmoz.com this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little |verifiable, #ADVERTISING|non-advertising, |non point of view information from |reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that INHERITED|notability is inherited, I say INHERITED|notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I have removed from this article copyvio which has been lifted off another website. Pricing information removed due to #ADVERTISING. The 'reference' does not exist and is a commercial website so have removed that as a potential spam link under . Having a celebrity endorsement is not reason enough for an encyclopaedia entry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:EL)