Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boil Ease


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Boil Ease

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable product. No references. Clubmarx (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of those references is the company with just a slight mention of this product. (Sorry, had a problem view the last link so I don't know about that one.) Clubmarx (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete product does not appear to have been the subject of substantial coverage by relaible sources. Merge with its parent company may be a possibility, but that has no article presently. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on the second reference in the book, or go directly to page 802, and you will see the following text in the second column about three-quarters of the way down the page:
 * Products (e.g., Boil-Ease) were advertised to cure boils for many years, but advertising now promises only to relieve the pain of boils. However, pharmacists should refer patients to a physician rather than recommending this product. Nonprescription therapy for boils is ineffective and can prolong the time until a patient consults a physician.
 * Even though the text is brief, I think that it is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that establishes notability, or even claims it. It just says that it's a product that exists and (supposedly) doesn't work all that well. Nothing particularly notable about that. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with benzocain its main ingredient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I'm nuetral between two actions: Merge with benzocain, or Delete, per nom, and notability not denostrated in sources.  N2e (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article cannot be kept and the content is too unreliable to be merged. The references added by User:Eastmain fall way short of the standard of reliable sources. They are either press releases or the reguritation thereof (although I can't see #4). When an encyclopaedia article relies on unreliable sources, the article is inherently unreliable. That's why the reliability of sources is essential to our notability criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mkativerata. Sole Soul (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (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.