Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calcium Lime Rust


 * 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 No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Calcium Lime Rust

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I removed the PROD tag from this article as I am contesting the proposed deletion. The prod was added by User:Peasantwarrior, and the reason given was "Not notable / important. Unreferenced (only reference is products web-page). Also, one section falls under NOT. Partially fails WP:NPOV." CastAStone//(talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable product along the lines of drano, although desparately needing cleanup.--CastAStone//(talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments on the talk page: "While products are not exempt from being culturally significant, I sincerely doubt there's any potential with this one". Nobody's been murdered by CLR like with Drano. They don't compare. This is just one of hundreds of thousands of products that doesn't distinguish itself in any important way TheBilly (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you're saying that only products used in crimes become notable? I thought they only needed to be written about, silly me. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man there, but I was saying....well, I was saying what I said. Please don't put made up words in my mouth TheBilly (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are your words. Either explain how the use of a product in a crime is necessary to notability, or kindly excise them.--Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per TheBilly. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but source. I have a DIY magazine that recommends this in its Q&A section for one thing or another about every four months. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable product, if only for their incredibly corny ads on Australian TV they used to show a decade or so again. Needs to be copyedited to get rid of the promotional tone though.  Lankiveil (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep Delete - Little more than an advertisement, and as such is in desperate need of deletion. Well, I tidied up the article a little, removed the ad-like tone and removed the link to the manufacturers' web-site. Where it's notable enough to remain, however, is a different matter entirely... Alloranleon (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per TheBilly, WP:NOTE, WP:ADVERT and WP:NOT. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads too much like an advertisement..."It removes calcium, lime and rust quickly and easily, usually within a few minutes."--English836 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Article no longer sounds like an advertisement, but needs a lot more work. Mh29255 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable off brand product. Tavix (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. No non-trivial coverage cited. About as notable as Scot Young Research.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article as rewritten is not excessively promotional, and numerous newspaper articles talk about it,per the Google news archive search, so there is some potential for referencing and expansion. That said, some of the articles are doubtless (even in Forbes) in response to the company's press releases (though the same could be said about a great many references) and basically say what the product should and should not be used for. If the article described the product based on its chemical content, from Material Data Safety Sheets, and its history and market share, from the busines press, it would be a vast improvement. As for it being "off brand" I disagree. In its niche it is a major product, widely sold in stores in my area. Edison (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (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.