Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepcid Complete

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pepcid Complete

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable "acid controler". No reason why every single product in a pharmacy warrants its own article. Speedy for no context was declined, this version was restored from history but new concerns arise. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-standing brand name, formerly known as Pepcid AC. Plenty of hits here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as CSD declining admin and Per TenPoundHammer. This is a well-established brand name drug. Pepcid AC and Pepcid Complete return a total of over 300 Google scholar citations. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the Find Sources link above, Google Scholar returns 39 hits, many of which are trivial mentions. I'd have no objection to redirecting to Famotidine, as Pepcid currently does, if consensus decides this is better. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you search for the older name "Pepcid AC", you get a total of 300 refs. A redirection to famotidine would not be appropriate, as this is not the drug's sole active ingredient. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all the money the manufacturer spends on marketing, it should be "notable" keep per Irongargoyle and 10#hammer. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marketing doesn't count: See "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." and "Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally, we check the history for better versions of an article before tagging for CSD. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IronGargoyle - prominent brand (as shown by scholarly Ghits); not a single drug. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would support a merge to Pepcid. Absent the marketing campaign, I find little difference between the non-medical coverage of the two, and I might point us to a much-less-advertised analog, Adderrall. I'd rather see all of these analog drugs covered under a single article unless their size becomes unmanageably large. I wouldn't fault the nominator too hard. There are massive regional differences in drug advertising. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to famotidine (which is what Pepcid redirects to). Basically, it's famotidine combined with common antacids. There's nothing in the article that can't be mentioned elsewhere, if it isn't already. If kept, then people who are impressed with the marketing campaign should work on bloating the article. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, Pepcid complete treats bloating. ;. Actually, I think the ad campaign is pretty obnoxious. Either alternate works for me, but I agree with Berian and Iron Gargoyle and Hammer abd Shadowjams. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got the joke. Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I use omeprazole myself. My reflux thinks Pepcid is a joke ;) Dloh cierekim 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long established standard product, and by our usual guidelines, worth an article. There are clearly enough sources. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet the article is still in the same condition as before nomination, with no sources, and barely the slightest assertation of notability. There is no indication that its previous name was Pepcid AC in the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using "assertion of notability" in the wrong way here. Articles don't need to scream out why they're notable in the first sentence. There only needs to be some indication that they might be notable. The discussion above supports the idea that it's a well known, frequently used, and notable product. A merge might be more appropriate, but whether or not its notability needs to be clearer in the article isn't an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question where are the multiple non-trivial sources for this "long established standard product"? JBsupreme (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. According to Pepcids website and multiple hits when searching for "Pepcid AC Pepcid Complete", the products are NOT the same. So again, I'm asking where the notability of Pepcid Complete lies. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors asking about notability should please inspect the search links above which are provided for this purpose. I did so and had no difficulty finding a good source from the wide selection available. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference you provided is effectively a catalogue entry, and fails the "significant coverage" requirement by some distance. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.", which is what we have here. The only issue with catalogues is that we don't write like a sales catalogue. But this is irrelevant as the source provided is such a catalogue and we are not planning to write in such a style. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (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.