Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stain removal


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. Sorry for the nomination people. I checked the history but I must have missed the valid content, just finding a lot of advertising content (hence it was tagged for G11). Seems like I made a grave mistake, for which I am truly sorry. Unfortunately, none of us is perfect. I apologize for the time wasted with this and I thank everyone for their comments and their work on this article now. It is truly appreciated. Regards  So Why  13:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Stain removal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essay that serves primarely to promote a product and explains why it's superior. I wonder how it survived this long. Reason I'm bringing it here and am not speedy deleting it is that it's not completely advertising and I think a AfD will not hurt but allow to G4 possible recreations. Was PRODded before but contested. Regards  So Why  22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's really just an excuse for an article to build up to a "but this product solves all those problems!" Terrible tone, it even has a smiley at the end.  The title is inaccurate, as it's not about "stain removal" in general, but specifically about not slopping hair dye around.  Some of the content could conceivably be moved to Hair dye, but the whole concept of the article is suspect. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to delete an article because it was vandalised to add a smiley? That's not a rationale for deletion founded in deletion policy.  Vandalism can be reverted.  And you want to delete an article on stain removal, that covers two types of stain already and their removal, simply because it doesn't cover the rest of the subject yet and because you don't think that stain removal is a valid subject?  That's nonsense.  There are entire books on the subject of stain removal.  And there are other books that document the subject non-trivially even without it being their entire focus, such as the "Stain Busters" section of ISBN 9780028643182, and pages 426–432 of ISBN 9780896762145.  The Primary Notability Criterion is amply satisfied, and any problem with the article can be solved by you, or any other editor, deciding to write and edit, rather than tag for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Stain - The current tone is not so great, but there's an article or part of an article in there. Most of the content is correct and sourceable, especially the 4 removal methods.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stain per User:LinguistAtLarge, because this is a useful search term; but if any of the current article content gets merged anywhere, it should go to Hair coloring, not Stain, because it's all a detailed analysis of hair dye stains, not stain removal in general; adding the material to Stain would unbalance that article. Anyone merging material from this article should be careful not to include material that could be construed as advertising for "Repelle Hair Color Stain Shield Wand".  Just in case anybody is inclined to vote "keep", note this article is both an essay and an advertisement for the aforementioned product.   Baileypalblue (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should note, conversely, that essays can be cleaned up by writing, and the just one section of this article that even mentions a product can be addressed, per Deletion policy, by editing the article in the normal way, without recourse to deleting the entire article. Editors have been desiring an article on stain removers and stain removal since 2005. If you think that this article is bad, then pull out your edit button and fix it, by writing. Sitting on the sidelines and voting in an AFD discussion, without making any effort to fix the article, won't get the encyclopaedia written, and there are plenty of sources on the subject of stain removal which can be used to expand this article, whose coverage of only two particular type of stains merely makes it imperfect, which, per our Editing policy is fixed by you editing it to add coverage of the other facets of the topic that it misses. It's not as if sources are missing, or even hard to find.  (Putting "Stain removal" into Google Books comes up with tens of books, all of the first two pages of results of which are directly apposite to this subject, even.)  Indeed, the Complete Idiot's Guide, cited above, even explicitly supports content on several of the stain removers that this article documents.  Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete content, recreate pagetitle as redirect Miami33139 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy-based reason for that. Indeed, do you have any reason for that at all?  This is not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Atrocious nomination by SoWhy, who as an administrator should know better than to do wholly unresearched nominations (or to nominate an article for deletion when editing the article to fix the problem would have taken two edits fewer), and atrocious rationales from Baileypalblue MatthewVanitas, and especially Miami33139. The article incompletely covered the subject, but covered some of it (as can be verified from the sources cited in this very discussion), and so was tagged for expansion; a few parts of it were stylistically poor, and so was tagged for cleanup.  So what did SoWhy and MatthewVanitas do?  Instead of using that edit button and writing, they both, separately, nominated it for deletion.  That is not, per our basic project policies, how articles are written.  Nor is it what editors, especially those who have becom administrators, should be doing.  As per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, which is based upon deletion and verifiability policies as they have been since their inceptions (and indeed was how deletion policy was expressed for several years), if you see an article that is in need of expansion or cleanup, you expand it and clean it up.  You don't nominate it for deletion.  Wikipedia does not need editors whose approach to collaborative writing is to tag incomplete articles for deletion.  Ample sources on this subject exist, and the unwillingness of any editors to do more than reach for deletion nomination templates as the cure for all ills is not a valid reason for deletion.  Please read our policies and follow them.  AFD is not cleanup.  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The first approach to an article like this is to remove every brand name, and every mention of a specific product, and then look to see if there is an article. The article indeed seem sto have bee introduced to promote a specific product, which may or may not be notable. But remove all mention of it, and there might be something left. I've done just what I advised, and suggest a secod look at the article. DGG (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename? Another editor removed some Repelle references. I went and removed the external links, as one was an article on Repelle's website, and the others made little sense (Center for Disease Control?).  The title is still far too broad for the subject, so on the Discussion page I suggest changing it to Hair dye stain removal.  Tone is still terrible, and my original recommendation to delete was mainly based on it being a CSD:11 for needing near-total rewrite to be appropriate.  However, removing all Repelle info (now done), renaming to reflect the specifics of the article, putting up a Tone template until it can be rephrased is workable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: CSD 11 only refers to pages that originally are written to exclusively promote a specific entity or product. Here, the very first version of this article looks more like a general essay on various alternative ways to remove hair stains instead of using hair dye. How did this page get named "Stain removal" anyway? And how did it evolve into promoting various products? This page needs an extreme makeover or merge, not deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination utterly fails our editing and deletion policies. Stain removal is a massive topic with an interesting history and deletion would do nothing to improve our coverage of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Valuable topic; article just needs much more work; do not see promotion at this point.Ekem (talk) 13:26, 26 January 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.