Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OxiClean (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Poor timing. –xenotalk 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OxiClean
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

HI! TEN POUND HAMMER HERE FOR OXICLEAN! ARE YOU TIRED OF SET-IN ARTICLES THAT SHOW NO SIGN OF NOTABILITY? SUBJECTS THAT SHOW NO SIGN OF COVERAGE IN RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES? THEN YOU NEED ARTICLES FOR DELETION!

(Seriously, I !voted keep in the last afd, but the sources are no good, and all I could find was press releases.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * keep I'm not sure how this nationally-marketed product couldn't be considered notable. If deleted Wikipedia would probably the only entity in the USA that doesn't know what it is.  The article content seems mostly factual as well - rather than lobbying for deletion why not spend time to add some references if that is the concern?--Rich0 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Being "nationally marketed" is not a criterion for inclusion&mdash;rather the criterion is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bongo  matic  03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As pointed out at WP:BEFORE, "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". In order to establish whether "normal editing" can fix an article, some amount of diligence is required, but which the nominator doesn't seem to have done. A Google news archive search shows on the first page at least two reliable sources independent of the subject that provide significant coverage of the product: the Denver Business Journal and The New York Times. Bongo  matic  03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bongomatic. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rich0. JJL (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Come on, Hammer; you know better than this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:40, 30 June 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.