Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamgee's tissue

Ad. RickK 19:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems not important enough. Delete. Wyllium 19:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Most certainly not an advert; an accusation to which I take great exception. The VFD was posted nine minutes after the article was created! How on Earth is "inportance" supposed ot be measured, and in what way is the frst use of coton wool in mediciene not important? Are we to purge all other trademarks (Ford? Boeing? Hoover? Rolls Royce? Cadbury? BBC?) from Wikipedia?Andy Mabbett 20:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Using that logic, we also should remove all articles on people, because we don't keep vanity pages. Wyllium 20:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep if the article is expanded and improved upon. In it's current state, it really seems to be of no importance. Marlowe[[user Talk:Destinova|²]] 21:54, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current version looks very informative to me, and the topic encyclopedic. Keep up the good work. Thue 23:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Interesting stuff.  Besides, the nice thing about VfD is the debate.  We've made lousy articles good and good articles great. - Lucky 6.9 00:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep.   &mdash; Lady Lysine Ikinsile 02:16, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the article text is accurate, this was be a notable advance in medicine. Average Earthman 16:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Average Earthman. &mdash;Stormie 05:02, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note that the tissue's proper name (and trademark) is Gamgee Tissue, so I've moved the article there. -- ChrisO 18:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added a piece of Tolkien trivia there as well.  It is what Sam Gamgee was named after!  Morwen - Talk 19:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)