Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CankerMelts


 * 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 Keep. Improper nomination in good faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CankerMelts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability/advertising

I'm not sure about the suitability of this article. It was created and has been edited by only one user (WP:COI?) The user account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of creating this article and inserting references to this product in other articles. This is my first AfD nomination and I feel this subject requires discussion. On the other hand, I feel that the information is notable enough and it would be a shame to lose it fom Wikipedia. So, in spite of the fact that I have nominated it, I shall place a a keep vote for it. TINY MARK  16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep-As above! TINY  MARK  16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep If you think this article has merit, you didn't need to take it to AfD in the first place. You could have placed coi, advert, or other similar maintenance tags on instead, as conflict of interest doesn't necessarily warrant deletion. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry! As I said, its my first AfD. TINY  MARK  13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. TinyMark, your concerns are warranted; this is not a good article. I'd redirect to glycyrrhiza myself. The reliable sources point to generic studies of the active ingredient, not necessarily the product itself. There are many brand name medicines that do not have their own articles on Wikipedia, but are listed as a sold-under name on the article about the drug/etc. itself. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 21 March 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.