Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anacin


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anacin
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts 501 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep/Request for comments. Not an expert on pain relievers but this one looks notable at least for historic value. Besides, there's scores and scores of Google hits for Anacin, but nothing worthwhile. Giving useful impartial information is what WP is for (not that the current article meets that standard). ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article does needs some work, but it was a very popular brand of aspirin at one time. Didn't know it was still around 'til reading this! -Medtopic 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but get rid of the advertising. Anacin was once popular and notable. --Coredesat 07:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Notwithstanding my comments at comments above at Kondremul, the article was started by someone else "because it took me a while to figure out what anacin really is". Shenme 11:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete howto advert Matthew Fenton (  TALK - CONTRIBS ) 12:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Does need clean up. Anadin is that same brand?Obina 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Educational (if that's a valid reason). I've seen it all my life but never known it wasn't just a brand name for pure aspirin (it's got caffiene too). --Jamoche 00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clean it up. RedRollerskate 00:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable branded product. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of the existing article was a copyvio. I took out the offending section, and I'm going to see whether I can expand it a bit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, current version is cleaned up as regards being an advertisement but oh so stubby. It could also use some source verification.  GRBerry 20:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.