Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Stuff Absorbent


 * 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 consensus.  MBisanz  talk 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Green Stuff Absorbent

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

Nothing to distinguish this from other brands of superabsorbent polymer. Has been deleted twice as spam. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to superabsorbent polymer and merge any valuable content. As a trademark, it's a reasonable search term. Pburka (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename and revise per RHaworth's suggestions below. Pburka (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the author of the article and this is my first time ever posting on Wikipedia. The first two versions were deleted due to my "rookie" skills on fully understanding Wiki rules.  PMDrive1061, who deleted the first two versions, then took me under their wing and helped me to edit and clarified Wiki guidelines.  As a matter of note, this Green Stuff material is NOT a superabsorbent polymer at all.  It is a phenolic resin that does not expand at all when it gets wet.  I have used it in our firehouse extensively and find it to be completely different in application and use compared to SAPs.  This product is particularly interesting to us firemen because of its usefulness in Hazardous Materials spills.  This stuff can absorb everything we have thrown it onto so far from antifreeze to full strength battery acid to turpentine.  The absorbents and spill pads we have used before this Green Stuff are almost completely useless in most HazMat environments.  That is why I wanted to write this piece for Wiki as Green Stuff is a completely new use for phenolic resin that firefighters (and I suspect many others dealing with liquid spills) will be wanting to know about in the very near future.  Having heard about Wiki as a sort of on-line encyclopedia resource for the general public, I thought this item would be a perfect new entry for Wikipedia.  I have no intent of spamming or advertising or anything else malicious.  Everytime we use Green Stuff Absorbent at our firehouse, someone else asks a million questions about it that I don't always have time to answer.  I figured I would write an article about what I knew about it on Wiki and then refer them to this Wiki article.  I can certainly understand (especially after re-reading my first deleted draft!) how this article can be perceived as 'advertising', but I can only offer my written assurance that this article's intent is to inform in the best spirit of Wikipedia and not to 'spam'.  I have tried my noble best to write the current piece in 'neutral content', but sometimes just 'reporting the facts' can understandably be seen by some as 'biased'.  I hope you will understand and sympathize with my plight and not remove an article that I think (know) will become a great encyclopedic resource for first-responders trying to find out unbiased info about a product and material that can be of great use to them in the present and future.  I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have for me on this article and hope that I can satisfy your queries resulting in an article that will best exemplify the spirit and intent of Wikipedia.  Thank you for your good concerns!!!   Syosset1966 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Find the generic name name for this product - absorbent phenolic resin foam perhaps. Re-word the article in terms of the generic name. Find at least one other manufacturer of the product and mention them as well. (The article should be moved on to the generic name but do not do so until this AfD is concluded.) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for the input. I have checked (on the sly) with our sales guy. Apparently there is no one else making this type of absorbent out of phenolic resin. They discovered it largely by mistake and it has only found a market recently due to it's light weight saving so much money on shipping costs (a factor they say also makes it 'environmentally friendly'). So, there are no other manufacturers at the moment for this version, Green Stuff Absorbent is it. They call it a 'phenolic resin absorbent' so, maybe that generic term could be used. Any thoughts? Syosset1966 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete non-notable product from a non-notable company. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the product. Company using WP for promotional purposes. -Atmoz (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm going to look over this more completely in a moment, but I first would like to point out to the earnest writer that it would be prudent to learn the difference between "absorb" and "adsorb".   Un  sch  ool  02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, with regret. I am genuinely sympathetic to the contributing editor's desires here.  RHaworth's advice is excellent, and I would encourage Syosset to follow it.  Yes, I understand that this is ostensibly unique, but that does not mean that a generic name, or at least, a non-trade name, cannot be found.  This was hard for me because I actually am somewhat persuaded that two of the sources (motorsport.com and europeancar magazine) are close to WP:RS, but even so, their articles appear to be little more than promos.  Un  sch  ool  03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm the one who assisted in the creation of this article since the original user was so eager to help.  Re. the comment on absorb vs. adsorb, the product's own website describes it as an adsorbant rather than an absorbant as the name suggests.  Nor was it intended to be written as an advertisement; listing a product's capabilities does not vis-a-vis mean it's an ad.  I've pointed out on several occaions that I used to write ad copy and believe me, I can smell my own when it comes to a blatant ad.  The original poster is a fireman, not a company rep.  Voting neutral since I'm the one who got this poor guy into this mess. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I like the idea of the redirect as suggested at the top of the discussion.  Just my $.02.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - any issues with the article reading like advertising can be handled through editting. As a specialised product, references may be harder to come by in regular press but I did find sources like this article published through Knight Ridder newspapers.  Also this article from an automotive site.  --Whpq (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (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.