Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mates condoms


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Mates condoms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-Prodded. Sourced to company website. BEFORE does show some coverage (mainly for ad campaigns around their launch in the 80s-90s), but not nearly enough for WP:CORPDEPTH Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing as while the company is quite clearly not notable, the brand seems to be notable per multiple opinions here. Will refocus article on the brand and not the company.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well known brand, the refs don't add up to much because ...its not a very sexy topic (sorry couldn't resist that)...because the article is a week old, refs  plenty more on google. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. These were kind of a big deal at the time, becoming the "Hoover" of condoms in the U.K. At the time when the AIDS crisis was hitting, the article should reflect that. Sounds like BEFORE is already turning up sources that can be used to support that? Artw (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For instance: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/30-years-remembering-day-uk-aired-its-first-tv-ad-campaign-condoms-1646823 Artw (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The launch ad campaign is of some note. This does make the former company (was acquired and currently part of Ansell) or the brand notable. Coverage mainly seems to be limited to the launch campaign, some passing condom mentions, and less than routine corporate news.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've just intimated the brand is notable in which case you should withdraw this nomination! Or clarify Szzuk (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be about the nonexistent (which I realized during the AfD, was purchased by Ansell) company which definitely fails CORPDEPTH. Does the UK specific brand of Ansell meet WP:PRODUCT due to coverage of their launch ad campaign in the 80s? I am not sure this it does, and the current article (still about the supposed company) dies not convince me.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC) The firm itself (a Richard Branson Virgin off-shoot) - was purchased by Ansell in 1988 (for 1 million pounds). Ansell recently sold its entire Condom division (a large number of brands, including Mates) in 2017 - See here  (BBC does mention Mates) and here  (the Sydney Morning Herald and most non-UK press - does not).Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So solid GNG pass. Artw (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The coverage above is not close enough for GNG for the Mates brand. The company itself is a clear fail. Basing GNG for the WP:PRODUCT based on its launch campaign in 1987? That's pretty shaky.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Exceptionally well-known brand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2017 (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.