Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zano (ZnO)


 * 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 delete. If the page creator wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Zano (ZnO)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After performing WP:BEFORE, there does not appear to be enough reliable, independent literature discussing this brand name in any substantial detail. Zinc oxide (the non-brand chemical) has plenty of coverage in scientific literature for its use in sunscreens, and perhaps the subsection in the article zinc oxide could be expanded somewhat, but it's doubtful this article could be expanded past a couple sentences, and its utility is dubious at best. I would suggest a redirect, but there's already a disambiguation page called "Zano".  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – entirely unremarkable product. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * After reviewing BEFORE, I think article could be fixed through normal editing, with the additional mention of EverZinc which is the subsidiary of Umicore. The reference quality available is excellent as it is a well studied product line and I am happy to continue working on it, given I have more time as the article was only recently created.
 * "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."
 * "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."
 * Zinc oxide products like Zano have wide applications because zinc oxide is not homogeneous, as certain particle sizes, dispersions, states, shapes allow zinc oxide to be used in areas such as electronics, industrial and cosmetic. Such widespread application is inherently interesting and useful to those entering those spaces.DemocratGreen (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC) DemocratGreen (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, DG. I think it's really cool when there are specialist editors who work to expand the depth of our coverage on a specific subject, and I think Wikipedia's more niche content is a huge part of what makes it remarkable, but I have to say I disagree here. To start, stating which company manufactures the article's subject doesn't constitute fixing notability issues. It doesn't hurt the article, but it's an entirely lateral change as far as a discussion about notability is concerned. The applications of zinc oxide are quite numerous, but the logic here is flawed: those applications are already covered in Zinc oxide. As I noted before, it seems zinc oxide's (the generic compound) application for UV absorption might warrant more substantial coverage in that article section, but saying "[product type] has a wide variety of applications; [product] is a brand of [product type]; therefore, [product] deserves its own article" would allow me to say "computers have an enormous range of applications; therefore, an article should exist about every commercially manufactured computer". Finally, to address the point about being inherently interesting and useful, I'll point out that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria don't operate on either of those standards. Why these standards are what they are has been the subject of endless discussion since the project began, but in general, they exist to enforce quality by making sure all of our standalone articles can say something substantial about a subject and cite this information to multiple reliable, independent sources. They don't exist to adjudicate whether a subject is interesting, useful, or anything else.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  02:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These articles are just aiming to create more transparency around an ingredient families use daily in cosmetics. The petrochemical alternatives are not recognised as GRASE by the FDA, they are made by pharmaceutical companies that have not produced safety data in 30 years plus. Zinc oxide is a topic worth covering simply for the reason of DALYs. Furthermore, to reiterate zinc oxide is not homogeneous, there are different particle size distributions and characteristics. I am not planning on covering every UV filter ever made, only the major ones. There is a lot of research that goes into zinc oxide. Blanketing the second most abundant trace mineral in your body as unsubstantial and under researched is odd. DemocratGreen (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lemonade is a historically, culturally, and industrially significant beverage, but the lemonade I sold from a stand at the age of nine does not need its own article. A product that is a branded version of a substance has to be article-worthy as a brand; the noteworthiness of the substance doesn't translate over automatically. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Smells of promo, zinc oxide is zinc oxide. You mix it with other stuff to make it anything special. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's entirely apparent to me that is not here for promotional reasons. It's prudent to be skeptical when underhanded or ignorant companies routinely try to leverage the project for guerilla marketing, but I think it's unnecessary to cast aspersions in this case. DG, as best I can tell, is a well-meaning editor who has a niche they're very passionate about, and it's probably quite hurtful to have their earnest effort to improve the project construed as corporate astroturfing.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  01:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * article was draftified prematurely by DemocratGreen, reverted by yours truly. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:31, 16 November 2022 (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.