Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse shampoo


 * 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 speedy deletion - leaving redirect behind per suggestion. - Vianello (Talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Horse shampoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bit of a coatrack for the domain name. No indication that this is a notable product. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Qualifies under A11 and possible G3 for hoax. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy per WP:CSD and tagged. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Shampoo, merge at editor's discretion if references can be provided. I can't find any source to suggest that horse shampoo is particularly notable, but aside from the external link I'm not seeing any promotional concerns to justify a G11. The claims about its effectiveness are not currently supported, but a search online reveals that it is at least a subject of discussion, not really a hoax, and if properly sourced they can be included in the proposed section (which, BTW, does say near the beginning that these products should never be used on humans) — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The content is pretty much junk as it is, I don't see anything worth merging, nor anything worth even keeping available in history. I can understand a redirect after delete, but not a merge. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The content is indeed poor so I don't feel strongly about it, but barring any serious issues that would require deletion, it is best to leave the content behind the redirect for interested editors to decide what is salvageable — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably artspam attempt. When there's a title and a site that matches the title, that's what I suspect. Otherwise, hoax. Peridon (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (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.