Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoe Goo


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Shoe Goo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Inadequate references, Google search didn't help. Not notable product for any discernible reason. Reads like a promotion. In all honesty, the delete was Mandolinface's idea. Sven Manguard Talk  05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Company is not notable, article cites no independent references to establish notability, fails WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, please see below or revisit article. Carrite (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find independent sources showing this particular product is notable. (Full disclosure: when I owned a retail store I sold a couple of other products made by this company. They were a minuscule part of my business, I have no current relationship to this company, and no feelings one way or the other about the company or the product.) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, no valid assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 05:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward keep. IMO, it's become a generic term for similar products and is a mainstay of the hobby and skateboarding industries.  I've even seen it repackaged in hobby shops by a major manufacturer, but darned if I can remember which one.  Might have been Trinity Electronics.  Besides, Wikipedia is not paper and articles like this are what set the project apart.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not above making mistakes, but we need to address the primary concern here: "Inadequate references, Google search didn't help" (i.e. not notable by our guidelines.) WP:PAPER is policy, but is secondary to the core policies of 'notable, verifiable, and not illegal' which take precedent. Sven Manguard  Talk  17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This brand is so well known as the exemplar of the (relatively rare) polyurethane solvent glues that its name has become generic for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE. This item is strictly promotional. I came online to find out how the product is used, why it was invented, what makes it superior (or so popular) etc.  This article answers none of these questions and reads like a poor promotion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quimbys (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That the article is promotional is not a valid reason to delete it when the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I will, within the next week, edit and source the article so that it complies with Wikipedia's policies. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already played with it pretty extensively, but feel free to add more beef if you've got more... I don't think the "strictly promotional" criticism applies any longer... Carrite (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic has received sufficient coverage to establish notability. This article from People (titled "Shoe Goo Guru Lyman Van Vliet Cures Tattered Tennis Toes with Sheer Stick-to-Itiveness") provides history about how and why Shoe Goo was invented. There are more sources, though they cover Shoe Goo in less depth than the People source: See this entry from Constructing Robot Bases by Gordon McComb, this entry from Slot Car Racing in the Digital Age by Robert Schleicher, and this entry from Anybody's Skateboard Book by Tom Cuthbertson. Furthermore, see this article from Cosmetics & Toiletries & Household Products Marketing News in Japan and this mention in Toledo Blade. The People article, published on August 9, 1982 is one of the best sources for Shoe Goo. Add this to the second best source, this article from Inc. (titled A Shoe-repair Product For People On The Run), and notability is solidly established. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - People magazine article constitutes independent coverage. Speaking as someone who works in the shoe retailing industry, Shoe Goo is a widely sold and well known product for probably two decades now, not some 15 minute Billy Mays-style flash-in-the-pan. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll spend a few minutes this morning trying to get this article up to WP quality standards. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've despammed things and made it a bit of a history piece. I think after the AfD closes (presumably with a KEEP result, since there are now non-trivial articles on the product from People and Inc. magazines showing and this now obviously clears General Notability Guidelines) the article title should probably be changed to Eclectic Products, with a bit of rewriting to match the new name. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Modified: Carrite (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2010 (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.