Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body mint

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 Redirect to Chlorophyllin. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 06:34Z

Body mint[edit]

Article is on a non-notable commerical brand of chlorophyllin, which already has an existing article. A merge/redirect was attempted into chlorophyllin, but was objected to and reverted. - Pacula 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the talk page: a google search for "body mint" brings up 30K hits. According wikipedia policy for notability, Wikipedia:Notability, there should be several independent articles on the subject, which it has. Daniel.Cardenas 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits do NOT equal notability - from what I understand from the specific guidelines here, the number of mere mentions or trivial references do not count, which is all counting the number of Google hits will tell you. A source also needs to be unbiased - anything from the company or another source trying to sell the product directly or indirectly does not count either. There's also another matter, even more important to consider I think: what makes 'Body mint' notable enough from chlorophyllin to warrant a separate article of its own? As far as I can tell, there isn't anything other than the trademark to distinguish 'body mint' from other commerical chlorophyllin preparations or chlorophyllin itself. In cases like these, wikipedia policy seems to be to redirect brand names to the article on the generic parent compound. The only exception seems to be in the case of a genericized_trademark, and that doesn't apply here - and if anything, it would apply more to Nullo, with a whopping 1.8 -million- hits on Google. And yes, I realize that not all of those hits are about the product - but a fairer search adding 'odor' to both brand names still results in 31K hits for Nullo vs 1.4K for Body mint. Pacula 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I discussed on the talk page, the chlorophyllin article is about an organic chemical. The "Body Mint" article is more about body health. The body mint article gives natural alternatives to "body mint". You are setting a higher standard than policy. The policy pages does not say unbiased and does not say anything about indirectly trying to sell the product.

Daniel.Cardenas 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect - to the Chlorophyllin article. The Chlorophyllin article is currently almost indistinguishable from the Body Mint article, other than the mention that it is a particular brand name. I do think that 30K Ghits is a helpful indicator of notability, but the issue is that there isn't anything essentially new in this article to distinguish it. Tarinth 15:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't evaluate articles on what they are today, but rather in what they will grow to be. Daniel.Cardenas 17:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chlorophyllin as per Tarinth. "Argumentum ad Googlum" needs to take the Google bias into account. Demiurge 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above --Wildnox (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As I said above and elsewhere, I had already merged all of the non-brand-specific data into the Chlorophyllin article. Originally, I thought the body mint article was the better of the two by far, but simply thought that content should be on the generic page rather than on one dedicated to a specific brand. Likewise, I think a see-also should be added to nullo, since that is also a popular commercial chlorophyllin preparation. - Pacula 04:01, 25 December 2006 (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.