Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turk's head toilet bowl brush


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Turk's head toilet bowl brush

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded this some time ago, but it was replaced by a notability tag. A Google search failed to find enough coverage. The TALDF press release and a copy of it were the only webpages I found about the product, and the few other sties I found were those selling the product. Not notable at all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Sources have been found now. I will now support a move to Turk's head brush, since that seems to be the more common term. However, the article should be re-written to reflect this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Turkish Coalition of America or Newell Rubbermaid. This is not just an ordinary product, it has caused some reaction, but it does not seem to be notable by itself. However, I think it is worth mentioning in one of these pages. See this Google search in Turkish. If we spend some time looking, we may find newspaper articles, two of which are already cited in the article. This is an article by a Turkish newspaper which has a quite high circulation. --Seksen (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article's subject is racist naming. But you're still talking about product. You must be joking. Maybe the gas chamber just a chamber for you. I explained to you sending a message. Reason for deletion is not appropriate. I don't accept it. Esc2003 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If nominator did not find other webpages about the product than the TALDF press release, they did not look very far and hard:. As these pages make clear, the naming issue goes beyond the specific Rubbermaid-brand version, so the definition in the lead ("a cleaning brush designed by the American company Newell Rubbermaid") is not accurate, and a redirect to Newell Rubbermaid is not in order. For another reference to the controversy, see here. --Lambiam 19:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the links above seem to be sites selling the stuff, not those actually about the product (except if they are selling it), and if I can recall correctly the Turkish Journal link is a copy of the TALDF press release, but my memory seems to be failing me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is more than meets the eye here. A few Google book searches show many results, most of them from earlier than 1900. These early mentions seem to be referring to a long broom, not a toilet brush, but most of the sources just mention it in passing so it is hard to be sure. There do seem to be explanations of what the brush is, for example here, but I can't find one that is readily accessible. It seems to me that the business about the toilet brush and the racism allegations could be tagged on the end of an article about the more general style of brush if it can be verified. It also seems to me that if the article is kept we will probably need to move it to Turk's head brush or similar. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that, but it appears to be that they may not be the same products (how can a toilet cleaning product be sold earlier than 1900 and still have the same name? Turkey didn't even exist yet at the time, unless the product was renamed recently). It could be re-written to be about a more notable topic (such as the actual controversy), but the actual product still doesn't seem to be notable (the lack of Google hits was probably because of the article name being fairly strange, and more hits would probably be found under a different title. If they are only mentioned in passing then I can't consider that as good enough coverage. If someone does find more reliable sources, then I will withdraw, but only if sources are found. Google failed me using this title, but maybe searching another title will find a pot of gold at the end of the AFD rainbow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "Turk" has been around in the English language since the 14th century (and the country name "Turkey" is also already attested in the 14th century). Fig. 65 in The Book of the home (1905), the book linked to above by Mr. Stradivarius, clearly shows this is the same type of brush still called "Turk's head" today. --Lambiam 13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About them not being the same products - I would guess that the end bit is the same, even though one is longer than the other. I would also guess that the toilet brush took its name from the general shape of the older, longer brush, and I think that whether you consider them as being in the same "family" of brushes is probably an academic question. Of course, guesses are no substitute for reliable sources. If we are just talking about the modern toilet brush, then I couldn't find any sources about it, so I suppose that this academic question of whether the two types of brush are in the same brush family is the one that will determine the fate of the article in the end. I wonder if there are any reliable sources that show they are related? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Newell Rubbermaid and create a "Criticism" section. I don't think there's a need for an entirely new article. With the sources we have, it will make a great reliably-sourced section. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge proposals seem to assume that it is one company's product, it is not, it seems to be a generic term. I agree if I were Turkish its name would annoy me, but that is not a good reason to delete this article from what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Greglocock (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a type of product is not my reason for nomination, nor is it its offensive name. It was just that I could not find enough sources to justify its inclusion here. I did find some stuff, but they were only a press release, passing coverage, and sites selling such brushes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Move and redirect article to whatever generic term has replaced 'turks head' in the toilet brush world. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete . The name is certainly both ancient and generic. "Turk's head" brushes were once used for cleaning cannons and removing cobwebs. I still clean up my cobwebs with the same kind of brush, though was not called "Turk's head" when I bought it. If kept, the article should be renamed to Turk's head brush and cover the generic brush type. A merge to Newell Rubbermaid should not be done, since they don't use the name for their product (in particular, the "rubbermaidwholesale.com" cited in the article indicates it is not affiliated with Newell Rubbermaid). The Turkish-American complaint does not appear to be notable, having no news coverage in English-language news media, and does not justify an article. -- 202.124.72.17 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm changing that to weak keep, since sources on the generic style of brush seem to exist. If kept, the rename to Turk's head brush is still desirable. -- 202.124.72.17 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to Turk's head brush per nominator. --Lambiam 20:22, 1 April 2012 (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.