Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Seal


 * 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 deleted after being blanked by creator and main contributor. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Super Seal

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

Article about a product by a company. The article gives no indication that is os as such notable. Passportguy (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to objectively describe a product for reference by its users. Will including more references and objective material prevent the deletion of this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You must describe why this product is notable, i.e. why it is of interest to the users of an encylopedia. If it is just another sealing product by a particular company then it is not notable enough for inclusion here. Passportguy (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you, ive tried to change the language to make it notable for encyclopedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A different make-up does not make it notable. E.g. it would be notable if it were widely used by a large percentage of dentists or if it had been involved in a widely publicized scandal. Passportguy (talk)


 * Delete Truly non-notable. References support verifiability but not notability.  Also, an assertion of uniqueness is not the same as an assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In searching for Gluma, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluma, another desensitizer, I wanted to create a page describing an alternative for a harmful product. How is this Gluma post notable and my page not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Gluma is notable because it is (quote from page) :"the most widely used product in the United States for the treatment of dental sensitivity." Passportguy (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Side comment -- I have tagged that quote from the Gluma article as needing a reference. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, wouldn't then SuperSeal being (quote from page) : "the only non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians" qualify it as notable. The product is not harmful, like other desensitizers, I would want to know this information if i had to choose between products. I would think the users would too. thanks for your help btw, im a newbie. --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would this be considered notable? --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not by itself, no. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, notability is established by the article subject receiving in-depth coverage from reliable sources. The issue here is that a lot of companies would want to have a Wikipedia article for marketing purposes, and if we let any old thing receive a Wikipedia article, then users wouldn't be able to find the useful content among the spam.  That's why the concept of notability exists. Effectively, "notability" for a product means that news sources, independent journals, etc. need to be talking about it (and not just running ads or advertorials about it). Thus, Coca-cola or Microsoft Windows are highly notable and have several articles each.  Sony Walkman or Chicken McNugget are notable and each has a long article.  Bic biro is a bit notable and has a short article.  But this isn't playing in that league. You ask about people who "have to choose between products", and the answer is, when people do this, they don't normally refer to encyclopaedias to help them.  Wikipedia is not a directory of links for prospective purchasers to follow; that's not why we're here and it's not why we're funded. Does this make sense?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - strong delete. Non-notable.   (On a side note, this is still a COI because MoffittAJ appears to be the replacement account for PhoenixDent which the group account that created the article and matches the company name that makes/distributes the product - that was blocked at 23:10, and then MoffitAJ was created and took over editing. Simply changing username does not remove a COI.)  JCutter (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising for a non-consumer product, a non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians. Curiously, HEMA redirects to Historical European martial arts.  I always suspected that dentistry was one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 1 May 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.