Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol

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 --JForget 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havidol[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-cycle in April 2007 and was re-tagged for PROD-deletion (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The latest PROD nominator stated "Very limited notability demonstrated, doesn't sound like it needs its own article." Personally, I do believe it has sufficient notability for retention in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Five individual editors who have made substantial edits to the article have been notified via template of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, notable enough that I'd heard of the campaign (though couldn't recall the name.) Article could do with expansion, more links etc but certainly deserves to stay. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for now. It it got 137 hits on Wikipedia last month; which suggests over one and a half thousand views a year (for stats see:http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Havidol). There is also three spoofed Havidol adverts on youtube. I am not sure if they escape the no copyrighted film link WP policy, which I think was meant to apply to TV and feature films -so maybe their links can go on. See:http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Havidol&search=Search Personally, I would prefer to see it as part of an article on Medical Satire though; then have this as a redirect to the new article. It would put Havitol in clearer context. Medical satire has a long history and therefore has potential for an interesting article, but if this article goes, so does all the links on the talk page. Then there is also the amusing work of James Gillray who often satirised medical matters (and are out of copyright now so could be included in such an article). For some of these examples see: http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/11/ouch.html--Aspro (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kim Dent-Brown I recall this campaign too. Xdenizen (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Havidol article is notable on a number of fronts. It is a social satire on the excesses of Madison Avenue and the drug industry to sell prescription medications. It is also a popular culture phenomenon much like the Pet Rock, the Hula hoop, the Cabbage Patch Kids, and Frisbee, all of which became more popular than expected. It is also an example of Pop art following in the heritage of Campbell's Soup Cans by Andy Warhol. I added some text in the article to provide a rationale for the article being notable. The article still needs additional work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added three citations and additional information to help bring the article into compliance.--Dan Dassow (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses the concerns about notability. Please review the current article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion.--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't imagine anyone now in good faith arguing for deletion here. Can we close this per WP:SNOW? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. For the reasons above. Moncrief (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.