Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaphor (2nd nomination)

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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphor[edit]

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

Unable to determine how this product is notable. There are dozens of petroleum jelly products, and this one does not appear to stand out from the rest. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aquaphor is a big company. It may not be a super exciting product, but I think it meets notability guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - Being 'big' means nothing if there aren't any references. That said I found This om the Cosmopolitan, LA Times and even an Academic article on the effects of Aquaphor on Infants. Lots of passing hits in Gbooks, not all useful though. JTdale ^Talk 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was contacted off-wiki by the author of the article, Caroline Nmann, to give her some input on how this article might fit into Wikipedia. I do see potential for having a neutral and well-sourced article, and I would support her in that process. I find it somewhat disingenious if user A empties the article of most content first, with user B then putting it up for deletion, claiming it lacks notability. This is a brand established in 1925, it has (like some other German brands like Aspirin#Trademark) an interesting history in war time, and it is listed 62 times in PubMed in various treatment studies for skin diseases, post-operative care, and infant care. Regardless of revenue, the last point would indicate notability at least to dermatologists. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder-de, I did not realise the page had been edited so recently before I sent it to AfD. Looking at what was removed, though, I completely agree with the editor who did the removal - the content was unsourced and somewhat promotional. Could it potentially be added back in? Of course. However, it would need a lot more sources. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content was promotional, but some was not. When the brand was first registered (in 1925), by whom (Herman A. Metz), how it got transferred from a German company to Duke Laboratories and back: how is that promotional? And since when do we blanket delete in such cases, rather then tagging missing cites? Well, let this AfD run its course, and then improve the article. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would advise against re-adding the material as it was rather promotional. I took the article back to a version that was before the edits of a person seemingly editing for or on behalf of the company. There can be no objection to neutral and referenced edits being made to increase the info in the article. I am inclined to support the retention of the article as it stands (or is improved, hopefully). By the way @Minderbinder-de: User:Caroline Nmann is NOT the author of the article. It was created in 2005 by User:Elysianfields who hasn't been seen since September 2014. The involvement of Caroline Nmann was only in this month. This is a very long-standing article. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I hope Caroline Nmann is able to help us in achieving an improved and still neutral article. It's nice when people get the idea that we don't allow promo without making an unnecessary fuss about it as most do, and realise that having a neutral article is better than making a promo one that gets deleted. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS There is no connection between me and Primefac. I removed the material after User:Jéské Couriano had tagged for speedy (spam), and declined his speedy. Had I not thought it either viable or potentially viable, I would have tagged it myself. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2014 (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.