Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendaxi

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 Speedy Delete per

WP:G3: a blatant hoax as demonstrated by nominator and the AFD discussion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Mendaxi

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

This is an unsourced article with nothing I can find about it elsewhere in my internet searches, so this could probably be a hoax. The names of the founder and the photographer and model aren't present out in the internet too, in my search effort. The images and their summaries however are the closest evidence to prove that this company exists, but they're not found outside of its Wikipedia source too. TheGGoose (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by someone with Greek print media sources, but I don't expect they'll be forthcoming. This article posits the existence of a multinational cosmetics company, funded by Aristotle Onassis, and purchased by L’Oréal. Admittedly, consumer products business news from the 1970s and 1980s is not necessarily online... However, there's no mention of this company in any of the biographies of Onassis that I could locate. No mention of this company in L’Oréal's history. No Internet presence for the company, for its founder, for its principal photographer, for its model. The only images of advertising copy associated with this company that appear to exist online are the ones present in this article (despite the fact that "classic" advertisements are somewhat in vogue as a topic of study and discussion). Oh, and while it's sort of believable as a name for a cosmetics company, the obvious root word here is the Latin mendax: false, deceitful, untruthful, or lying. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting that this subject's name is based on a Latin word that describes hoaxes. Notice in Mendaxi Press Advert 1972.jpg where there is a vertical gap in the middle, perhaps giving the realization that the image is from two pages. The last edit by the article creator also asserts a bit more info about Mendaxi and a claim that the photographer also worked on a Benetton campaign. here. TheGGoose (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing found on this company. The "advertisements" could easily be produced using even the most basic image editing software - they are likely hoaxes themselves. Since the company supposedly had subsidiaries in "more than 20 countries," the Greek language shouldn't be a barrier; if this company existed, many references in Western European languages should be available. The text quality of the upper left advertisement looks particularly poor (almost like using MS Paint or a similar program to type on an image) and would not have been used by any actual advertiser in 1972, nor would an advertiser have perplexed customers by mixing Greek and Latin scripts within the same sentence. The purchase of a cosmetics giant operating in 20 countries would also have attracted attention from business reporters, but no references to Mendaxi exist in Google's News Archive or Google Books (aside from one "book" consisting solely of Wikipedia articles). All of these details point to a likely hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 - I was going to tag it as G3 when I noticed it was nominated and this should easily been tagged as my searches including the simplest ones found absolutely nothing. Although this is before the internet, I'm not very optimistic there are non-English and offline sources because they're would've at least been something especially if it was actually acquired by L’Oréal and funded by Aristotle Onassis; not to mention the photos seem to appear newer than the 1970s. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually tagged the article with G3, but I reverted it and set up this discussion instead, to see what other Wikipedians recommend. TheGGoose (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2015 (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.