Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reach (brand)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reach (brand)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was originally PRODed by. Concern was: ''Blatant advertising. COI. Possible paid editing. If anything, belongs as an item under parent company.'' Was dePRODed by under the premise that:. Indeed, this article is blatant branding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment REACH is a legendary brand, it is almost history now. I think Johnson & Johnson has effectively discontinued the brand by selling it to Dr. Fresh LLC. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Highly promotional article with little encyclopedic value to the average reader, outwith marketing for the owners. scope_creep (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The problem here is not one of notability as a 15 second look at the sources will demonstrate. See, in particular substantial, independently published coverage in (1) THE BOOK America Brushes Up: The Use of Toothpaste and Toothbrushes in the Twentieth Century (McFarland); (2) coverage of the engineer who designed the Reach toothbrush in the Boston Globe; (3) AN ARTICLE in the Chicago Tribune, noting that Reach toothbrushes had at the time 28% of the $265 billion American toothbrush market. You do the math. This is a keep right there even according to the new draconian corporation/product rules that the nominator has outspokenly touted elsewhere on WP. No, what we have here is an article written as a timeline rather than a proper encyclopedia article. Is that sufficient reason for deletion? Hell, no. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: A brand existing doesn't make it notable even if had 105% of a trillion dollar market. Only significant coverage in reliable sources does that. The key issue for me is "significant". Re-written marketing releases, paid advertising masquerading as a magazine article, minor mentions in articles about Harry Potter movie tie-ins, the obituary of a toothbrush designer, none of these are enough in my sweep of the sources to confer notability to the brand itself. There would need to be multiple significant sources regarding the brand as a whole, not just occasional articles about it's products to qualify for general notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It once had 28% of the market? No disrespect, but an obvious keep. I actually remember this brand. Yes, it's a crappy article, but AFD isn't clean-up. --Calton | Talk 16:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is in bad state, but the subject is clearly notable, and salmonids should be in order for whoever PRODs such a thing.-- cyclopia speak! 21:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * possible Keep, but rewrite. Market share is and should be a major consideration in deciding if a separate article for a product is justified--otherwise, the mere fact of notability does not necessarily justify a separate article (see WP:N for the basic guideline on combination articles in cases like this). The article is however wildly over-expansive; presenting a article on a company or product as a chronological list of mostly minor developments is not encyclopedic, but is customary on a company webpage where they tend to have a different idea than an encyclopedia about  what is worth mentioning., I would like you to confirm whether or not this is a paid article, because this does make a difference in the willingness of volunteers to rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep., changed from possible keep on the basis of the explanation below.  DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, no this article was not paid. I wrote it long before I started my paid editing writing (“career”, yeh?) because there seemed to be a clear gap to fill in. Even at the time of writing this legendary brand was in demise. I wonder what company would have paid for it back in 2016? Could it be DuPont that sold the brand to Johnson & Johnson in 1977, JNJ that sold it in 2012 and discontinued later or Dr. Fresh LLC, a rather small and non-notable company? Anyway, I agree that the style of the article is poor, it was one of my earliest contributions and I didn't have much experience. I have no intention to rewrite it myself given the current “witch hunt”. If the community feels it should be deleted, go ahead. I personally think it would be big mistake and a potential value loss to Wikipedia as a project. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Basing this on notability, I would add this book to those Carrite presented. I would also agree with Calton that AfD is not cleanup; however, the page does need some major work. I am old as dirt so I remember the commercials for these on television, newspapers, magazines, and more. It may not be a prominent brand today, but it was a long time ago and the reliable sources show it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage in sources. feminist (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2018 (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.