Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn soap ingredients


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn soap ingredients

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not encyclopedic, WP:NOT, unsourced, and copy/paste of other article. The main part of the article is only a list of ingredients, bringing nothing to Wikipedia. Ingredients explanation have been then added but are only copy/paste of other article. Stroppolo talk 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question It is possible that "Dawn soap" is notable, and if so, the article, or some of it, ought to be moved there.   DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Dawn soap does not currently have it's own article. The article Dawn soap ingredients only brings up an ingredient list, which is not enough for an article. If there would have been, a redirect would have been good. -- Stroppolo talk 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's something particularly controversial about the ingredients that would cause them to be on the news and therefore notable and remarkable, we shouldn't have a page like this.  ♥  Soap  ♥  00:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete Wikipedia is Not the exciting and incomprehensible reading you do of the back of the label while you do the dishes. Also the "Ingrediants" [sic] section is all copies of each ingredient's article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic material. Simply nothing notable about this particular set of ingredients. -- Shirik  ♥ ♥  01:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If there were an article Dawn (soap) or similar, I would have no objection to the merging of this material into that article, but it does not yet exist. -- Shirik  ♥ ♥  01:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are so many ways that this article could work; at the moment it doesn't. What I see here is an analysis of the ingredients in a particular type of product (in this instance, a grease-cutting dishwashing liquid), but the focus is upon Dawn™ brand grease-cutting dishwashing liquid.  It's more intelligent than the lazy list of blue links that usually gets palmed off as an article, to be sure.  As the author points out, compounds like sodium pareth sulfate are present in other cleaning products.  Perhaps it can be rescued (if you happen to see somebody working on their computer while they're in Aisle 5 of the supermarket, that may be writing a Wikipedia article) Mandsford (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What should be done about Joy soap ingredients, a similar unreferenced article by the same author, given that it may—or may not—be the same formulation as Joy (dishwashing liquid), also unreferenced? What would be an appropriate secondary source for the ingredients? - Pointillist (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally think that the redirection is good. As for secondary source about the ingredients : If there is no issue or controversies about the ingredients, there is most likely to be no interesting source covering the subject. -- Stroppolo talk 22:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made this clearer! I think there are inevitable problems with FMCG formulation articles or sections. If there is no secondary source, the primary source is probably an individual unit of the product, in which case the same brand of product sold at another time or in a different territory might not have the same formula. I'm not saying this is underhand or unethical, but it is raises the bar verifiability. If the formulation is listed on the web and can be archived, that might be an acceptable source. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither useful nor encyclopedic nor notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above but additionally, to the extent there is anything here, it is Original Research -- SPhilbrick  T  18:08, 16 February 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.