Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was SNOW Withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Bar Keepers Friend

AfDs for this article:
Bar Keepers Friend (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PRODUCT. This article is simply an advert complete with product comparisons and usage instructions. The only coverage I could find were advertisements and happy homemaker/life hack type articles. If there were an article on SerVass Labratories, its manufacturer, this could be redirected. Jbh Talk 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator I obviously still disagree that this is notable, per Wikipedia's guidelines, but obviously everyone disagrees. No point in dragging this out for a week and wasting everyone's time. I have no objection to a snow close as keep. Jbh Talk 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC) The withdraw does not do anything since there is still a delete vote and I have not changed my opinion but I do not object to snow either. Last edited: 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Why nominate it then? I specifically asked for help doing that myself, and you "helpfully" did it for me instead. Now you're withdrawing, making my case even more untenable. The article is trash, it fails WP:GNG miseably, yet people below are basically shilling for it by saying that GNG is wrong(!). Shouldn't they go start their own website with lowered standards? This is nuts. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    This is heading towards a Snow Keep based on what I see as really bad arguements. Some things are pointless. This AfD is one of those things. If someone other than an IP who has been bludgeoning the AfD and narrowly avoiding a block for attacks and disruption agreed with my assessment it might be worth continuing. In this case three admins and several very experienced editors think that this is some exception to what I understand to be Wikipedia's notability criteria. No one is going to close this as other than keep. Sometimes the Wikipedia community collectively makes what one thinks are bad, foolish or flat out wrong decisions and one must simply let it go and role with it - this is, in my opinion, one of those time and I see no point in forcing seven days of debate for a forgone conclusion. Jbh Talk 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC) My crappy mood is showing through. Sorry. Last edited: 00:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is the same conclusion I came to. The first 10 pages of Google Search have 3 forums, two blogs and ninety-five websites trying to sell the stuff. Searches in books, news and news archives, which I undertook as part of my due diligence in deleting unsourced parts of the article, are all similar. In doing so, I also noticed that Beurt SerVass doesn't have an article. I'm not a fan by any means, but that would actually be notable. Ditto the company bearing his name, I suppose. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 02:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Question – @ Jbhunley: I noticed that you removed the product comparison content from the article ( diff) and then restored it ( diff), just prior to nominating the article for deletion ( diff). Then in your nomination, you base part of your deletion rationale upon the content you restored. Why? Sorry, but on the surface, this comes across as a potential bit of gaming to further qualify deletion. North America 1000 03:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Northamerica1000: I started pulling out things which I thought were problems but I quickly saw that I would end up effectivly stubbing it - without sources to support notability. So I restored what I cut away, so I would not be accused of gaming by butchering the article before nominating it, and nominated it for deletion. Jbh Talk 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    That's exactly what I had done in the first place, only to be accused of "blanking" the page. You remove a shoddy ref and it's allied claim, then another claim that rested on the ref has to go. That should say a lot about the strength of the article. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 05:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Only one of those are what could be considered significant coverage as is reqired by GNG;
  1. IBJ Bar Keepers Friend parent lands new headquarters normal course of business announcement
  2. Huffington Post How To Remove Scratches From Dishes: Bar Keepers Friend Product placement this is not an article with reporting as such/Mostly a reprint of Lifehacker blog entry [1].
  3. Old Home Journal "Its a great old product. A scouring powder that really works..." Advert/passing mention.
  4. Times Union - a blog titled Removing soap scum from shower doors – 4 methods and a winner!! - really?
  5. Homebrewers handbook "Bar Keepers Friend is a general cleaning agent that works particularly well on stainless steel..." Passing mention/product use instructions
None of these actually talk about the product and all of them, as well as the many similar articles, simply say it is a good cleaner, maybe mention some ingredients, and say what it can be used for. The Allbusiness article, on the other hand, does have some in depth coverage - it is the one good article mentioned in the previous AfD - however it is insufficient on its own to get this past WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Jbh Talk 03:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 04:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I would just add that, to my eye, "Allbusiness" (which is really lifted from "Indiana Business Journal") is actually the single worst reference here. There's no way that shlock can be considered neutral, as companies pay to be listed on the site, and presumably in the previous print incarnation. WP:GNG states that "sources need editorial integrity". No byline, no criticism, no ref. I mean, right??? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 04:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Indiana Business Magazine seems to have been legit "Indiana Business magazine is published by Indianapolis-based Curtis Publishing Inc., which continues to produce the Saturday Evening Post. Curtis also published various state business guides, directories and community-profile magazines." [2] Do you have any evidence it was a "pay-to-play" PR shop or otherwise not independent? Jbh Talk 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I suppose I'll dig for some. In the meantime, I'd point you back at your own quote. "...business guides, directories and community-profile newspapers." I've worked for such a company here in Ottawa on two separate occasions, delivering flyers, phone books, the "Auto Trader", etc. What they produce is not "news" by any stretch. Also, in that vein, media consolidation has largely forced any firm with a printing press to run anything through in hopes of making a buck. Oh, it may also be of interest that the editor in 1994 was Cory SerVaas. In case that seems like a coincidence (in spite of the uncommon name), Cory was preceded in the job by (wait for it...) Beurt SerVaas! I'd say that's a bit conflict-y, no?
/info/en/?search=The_Saturday_Evening_Post#Editors 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 05:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not finding anything to reinforce my direct allegation, but I believe my last point above puts the nail in the coffin of that particular ref. We cannot assume editorial integrity of a magazine that says wonderful things about a consumer product, when they're both produced by the same owners! That shouldn't even be controversial. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Here are two book references I found from Google Scholar:
Book references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=dOS38515sg4C&dq=%22bar+keepers+friend%22&q=Ber+Keepers+Friend#v=onepage&q=Bar%20Keepers%20Friend&f=false “Mary Ellen’s Guide to Good Enough Housekeeping” by Mary Ellen Pinkham and Dale Burg Macmillan, 2002, ISBN  0-312-28567-1

https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=nkyrOr_jpEEC&dq=%22bar+keepers+friend%22&q=Bar+Keepers+Friend#v=snippet&q=Bar%20Keepers%20Friend&f=false“2,001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets” by Jeff Bredenberg Readers Digest Association, 2004 ISBN  0-7621-0489-9

Suppose that Wikipedia decides to have an article about a product. When you Google for the product name, you will find some articles that talk about how to use the product, maybe even some sites offering to *sell* the product. Neither of these would argue against us having an article. The 300,000 Google hits (including reliable sources, and many sites not affiliated with the manufacturer) appear sufficient to indicate this is a respectable cleaning product that is widely used, even when you ignore every sales site. See also ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Cleaning products. This turns out to be a large category with many individual products such as Ajax cleanser and Comet (cleanser). See also Cleaning agent, List of cleaning agents and 20 Mule Team Borax. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
None of that, however, is significant coverage per GNG. In Mary Ellen's Guide to Good Enough Housekeeping a dozen passing mentions do not add up to significant coverage. The other book you link, 2001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets has no preview available. Does it have significant coverage or is it just more uses for the product? As to the rest WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jbh Talk 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I've updated the Bredenberg link for '2001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets' and it should now open to show you the hits. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I only see three mentions. One that is a 'how to use', one which just mentions its name and an index entry. Am I missing something? Jbh Talk 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You would expect a notable cleaning product to be mentioned favorably in books about cleaning, assuming there is no corporate connection or hint of advertising. (Unclear how a cleaning product could achieve any other type of fame). On page 44 Bredenberg treats this product as the equivalent of Comet (cleanser) for a particular task. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
In reading other articles in the list provided by NA1k, it seems there are many ways. Advertising, controversies, mergers and acquisitions resulting in disparate use of names in different markets, etc. Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with how a cleaner is used, or how well it works. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
They sell other products too. I don't see why they'd be particularly biased. Nfitz ( talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You not seeing a thing /= a ref being kosher. A Home Depot store manager, recommended a product Home Depot does sell, not one they don't. This is not rocket surgery. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I still think WP:GNG has been met, and this is a keep. Nfitz ( talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You already voted "Keep". Do you think saying it more often will make your argument stronger? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Why do you have to respond to everything? Do you think if you get the last word against everyone who disagrees with you, it will make your argument stronger? Nfitz ( talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't think you've adequately understood my question. What I'm asking is how you merge a namespace with a list. As you seem to have the world by the arse, feel free to grace me with your acumen. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I understand your question. I simply was surprised that all those articles exist, and am even more confused why anyone thinks that this one should be any different. Fix the article, fine - it clearly has issues. But delete it? I don't see any reason to be rude - it's your tendency to do so, that gets you into trouble. Nfitz ( talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
No, you really didn't. First off, I said everything on that list has an article. Why would you yell my own assertion back at me? Secondly, "Good grief" is not politeness. If you find the word "arse" to be offensive in a context where it didn't refer to you, that's your issue. I use all the words in the OED, buddy. Now, what was that about rudeness??? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm starting to realise why you keep getting banned. You've got a major attitude problem! Nfitz ( talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
This is not the place for your mudslinging, OK? If you want to keep pushing the ad hominem button, have the courtesy to do it on my talk page, or yours, or anywhere else. You're being ridiculous. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm being ridiculous? You took offence at "good grief". How is that possibly anything, anyone would ever take offence at? It was merely an interjection of surprise. No, this isn't the place for mudslinging - but I'm surprised one would start slinging mud, and then say that. Nfitz ( talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I wrote in 2012, this is an iconic product of very long standing and I have difficulty imagining how we are improving the encyclopedia if we remove this. I would find the available sources sufficient to show notability. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 06:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    "Iconic" is a weasel word and/or puffery. As I said elsewhere, I had literally never heard of this stuff until happening across the WP article today, despite having heard of every other product listed on the page; yes, even "Zud"! Just as that shouldn't matter to the debate here, neither should your view of the product. By the by, it's...uh, lovely that you happened to find this page after almost five years! 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I was referring to your sarcastic comment about their reappearance 5 years later. It's pretty easy to see from their edit history that they regularly contribute to AFD discussions, and that they were going through new AFDs just now. Not surprisingly, they recognized the product name, and edited. Is it possible that you are not that familiar with this product, because it is primarily an American product, and you don't live in the USA? I must admit it's not common here in Ontario - though not entirely unheard of. Nfitz ( talk) 07:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
An editor's previous opinions on an article are relevant, or else they wouldn't be posted here. US products are advertised on TV...which we in Ontario get piped in from Detroit, Buffalo or Rochester. I've heard of Zud, which is equally (un)popular here. Nevertheless, my position to delete is based on the same internet they get down there, or that you do. It's a trash article, whose only purpose is to let people know that a cleaner exists. Well, the SerVaas family owns newspapers or whatever, so they don't need free advertising! Now, unless you have more ad hominem insults, I think you've made whatever contribution to this debate that you can. Bye. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There's some Zud under my sink. The article has issues - no one disagrees with that. This debate isn't about whether the article has issues - issues can be fixed. This debate is about whether the article should exist. They are two almost entirely unrelated issues. You act like the product is unusual. However for "bar keepers friend" one gets over 300,000 hits. That's not a rare product. Nfitz ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
A thing being common /= a thing being notable. I'm not acting like anything. How do you not know this after 11 years on here??? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Why again the rudeness? Why the straw men? I'm simply trying to understand your strong objection to this article in particular, compared to similar equivalent products, such as Vim, Comet, or Ajax. Nfitz ( talk) 08:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The primary editor arguing for deletion seems to be doing so on the basis of some combination of his personal unfamiliarity with the subject of the article and the fact that primary sources about a product that was predominantly established 50 years before the advent of the internet does not have significant enough internet coverage for his tastes --300,000 google hits notwithstanding.

I appreciate that the article could be stronger, but I disagree that it is merely and advertisement. The comparisons with other products and statements as to its value are there to establish notability for the subject, not to advertise it. The factual information is not, so far as I can tell, in dispute, so as to whether or not the validity of an industry mag as a reference is made "suspicious" by having as the editor the son of an industrial manufacturer is largely irrelevant in my book, mainly due to the plentitude of other references. Industrial participation does tend to run in families, and that does not inherently make their behavior unethical. As to whether or not iconic is a weasel-word, I can understand that assertion, but I personally find that term fairly apt. This is a product that has stood the test of time with, so far as I can tell, very little alteration, while commonly being recommended by word of mouth. Word of mouth is how I found out about it, and its effectiveness is why I was surprised there wasn't an article about it, so I created one. The tendency to nominate articles for deletion mostly because the subjects don't *seem* important to you is one of the significant activities that discourages diversity among our editors, and in my mind, negatively impacts the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a general reference, both by decreasing the range of its content and by contributing to our poor reputation, as a very political place where female and minority perspectives tend to get deleted by young white men who have the leisure time to be relentlessly insulting to everyone who disagrees with them. I think this cleaning product is notable enough in and of itself to have an article, and that serves the interests of readers like me who do most of the household cleaning for our families. To delete it seems arbitrary and whimsical and not the rigorous enforcement of policy the nominator seems to think his actions embody. Netmouse ( talk) 11:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • No, Zud is not similar in composition, it is much simpler and cruder. It is also prone to scratching glass, as it uses silica and pumice as abrasives, unlike Barkeeper's Friend which uses a softer feldspar. Barkeeper's Friend also contains a surfactant, which Zud doesn't, so doesn't need additional soaps or detergent in use. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it was mentioned above that there are 95 websites selling this product. That sounds like a compelling case for notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    What I actually said was that, of the first ten pages of Google results, 95% of them are selling it. IOW, you're compelled by a reason other than WP:N. This is to the detriment of Wikipedia. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    That's not what you actually said. Besides, I personally believe that it is better to apply common sense than to insist on rigidly adhering to policy. Furthermore, it is both hilarious and preposterous that you have the nerve to talk about anything being a detriment to this project. All you are doing is wasting the time of people who are actually interested in building an encyclopedia. I'll ask you a variant on the question you uproariously asked BMK below: how can you possibly believe that you have anything further to add to this conversation? Lepricavark ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Andy Dingley in full. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "I agree with" simply means that I'm citing the same reasons as they did, so, yes, it is a valid reason to keep. You, on the other hand, have been warned on AN/I about WP:BLUDGEON, so you need to stop responding to every !vote posted here before some admin sees your behavior as being disruptive and blocks you for it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since when did the number of web sites selling a product or being "well known" and/or "unique" but having no significant coverage in independent RS pass GNG? Three hundred thousand trivial mentions dating back eighty years do not add up to significant coverage. If this were some new product with the same quality of sources (Lots of trivial mentions that say nothing beyond, shocking I know, that a cleaner cleans stuff; a single article in a regional business magazine; the MDS data sheet for its primary component; and citations to the product's own web site.) we would be discussing, at most, whether it should have been tagged {{ db-advert}} and definitly not heading towards a snow keep.

    We have notability criteria and content standards for a reasons, including to ensure that the topic is both encyclopedic and can be covered in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Usage instructions and primary sources lead to an article which is neither. Show me how independent reliable sources can be used to write an encyclopedic article that talks about the product - say its history, why it's unique, what effect it has had on the history of cleaning products etc - and I will withdraw this nomination and !vote keep myself. Jbh Talk 18:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Yet I am positive that we do not have a notability criterion that says trivial mentions somehow 'stack' and that we do address this issue in WP:GHITS specificly as an arguement to avoid. Jbh Talk 18:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, that essay means absolutely nothing to me as it tends to dismiss arguments that I believe are valid. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
"I'm fairly certain..." /= "reliable source". There are 633k results for "toenail art"...you gonna go write the article now? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
No, because the topic doesn't interest me. Also, I'm not obligated to write anything. This is a volunteer website. I'm giving my time and receiving no compensation for it. So drop your condescending attitude. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I added another source within the box I provided above. See "addendum". North America 1000 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    The only thing that article says about the product it taken verbatim from the company's About Us page.

    There may be more information available about the company that would justify an article, this page could then be redirected to a section in the company's page. I could definitly support that. Jbh Talk 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

    "The only thing that article says about the product it (sic) taken verbatim..." is not true. The Packaging World article ( link) includes a great deal of content about the product's manufacturing and production. Only the second paragraph of the 14-paragraph Packaging World article contains content that is also on the company's website, and within this second paragraph, it's not all verbatim; only the first three sentences within it have verbatim content. The rest of the article is not on the company's website. North America 1000 19:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obviously notable, you only have to plug the name into a Google News search to see that. Admittedly, products are somewhat tricky in terms of notability, but as a UK version of this article I'd suggest Brasso which is an equally notable but equally poor (and should be improved) article. Neither, however, are non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Google is not a recognized criterion for WP notability. If it's so notable, it should be easy to find refs that aren't trash. I went through the first ten pages of Google Search results, and there wasn't one solid ref. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yes it is obviously notable, and meets GNG. I rarely am on the "keep" side of AfD discussions but this one is a slam-dunk. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note Coretheapple is a major contributor to this article, and is the first user to revert my deletion of unsupported claims with bad references. Thanks for your opinion! 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh I don't know if you can call me a "major" contributor. I did revert one of your edits, and earlier I excised some promotional content. My main interest is in creating an article on "Zud," a similar product, but alas there is a paucity of sourcing. Why cleaning powders don't interest The New York Times is beyond me. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I've withdrawn the AfD but FFS if something is obviously notable should it not be trivially easy to come up with a couple of independent reliable sources that provide significant in depth coverage that demonstrate that notability? That is, after all, why we differentiate between WP:N and the dictionary definition of notable. Jbh Talk 19:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I could be wrong, but I think the fact that there is one "delete" !vote (the 184 IP) disqualifies the AfD from being withdrawn by the nominator. If all the !votes were "keep" you could withdraw it, because there would then be no "delete" votes, and the net result would be to keep the article. As I said, I might have that wrong, but that's my understanding. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I did have the idea it'd make a great DYK. E Eng 02:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This cleanser has been a household product in the United States for at least a century. It's like Ajax (cleaning product), but can also remove things like hard water spots and rust. Here's some mentions: 1, 2, 3, 4. — Maile ( talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    • User:Maile66, are you saying Ajax can't get rid of those spots? What about Comet? I thought it was all the same stuff. While I have your ear, what do you prefer-- Brillo Pads or S.O.S Soap Pads? And do such pads come without soap powder in the US? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
      • The pads are just steel wool, which you can buy in various degrees of coarseness at pretty much any hardware store, and maybe even some of the huge mega-supermarkets out there in the US (but not here in Manhattan, where the supermarkets are mostly less "super" and more "market". ) Whenever I go out-of-town to do a show and I'm confronted by the mega-markets, I have trouble finding stuff in all that space, and then making choices when I do find where what I'm looking for is located. (Oh, my family was a Brillo famiiy, but my wife's was an SOS family, and that's what we use.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
This thread is destined for the Off-Topic Hall of Fame. E Eng 04:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Is there a barnstar for that? Or perhaps a statuette fashioned from steel wool? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSUSEFULL, EEng. I guess I've never seen, or looked for, steel wool in the hardware store. So, BMK, you travel the country to buy Brillo pads? That's exciting. I'm still interested in Maile66's response; they're an administrator and so they should be good at cleaning things. Drmies ( talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
No, generally when I work outside of NYC, I go shopping to buy food, because if I ate out every night, I wouldn't have any salary left. I can't recall ever buying Brillo (or SOS, or steel wool, for that matter) when I'm out of town. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I find no road trip is complete without a stop at one of the better retail establishments for some steel wool. I find the No. 000 especially... soothing. Great for exfoliating. E Eng 02:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Barkeeper's Friend (and Zud) are unusual in that they contain oxalic acid. This is uncommonly good at removing inorganic mineral staining from metals (i.e. water stain, rust), and commonly good at removing staining from non-metals. It's the convenient version of the old trick for cleaning a metal pan (canonically aluminium) by boiling up rhubarb or rhubarb leaves in it. It's also one of those products where you think, "If they hadn't been making that for a hundred years, they'd never get to make it new today". Certainly I wear gloves around it. There are health-nut life-hack web sites out there saying, "Don't get ripped off by Big Cleaner, just use bulk oxalic acid instead." This is stupid advice, it removes the abrasive from these cleaners, 100% oxalic acid is also not a household chemical to have just hanging around. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:11, 1 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bar_Keepers_Friend_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089513574"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SNOW Withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Bar Keepers Friend

AfDs for this article:
Bar Keepers Friend (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PRODUCT. This article is simply an advert complete with product comparisons and usage instructions. The only coverage I could find were advertisements and happy homemaker/life hack type articles. If there were an article on SerVass Labratories, its manufacturer, this could be redirected. Jbh Talk 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator I obviously still disagree that this is notable, per Wikipedia's guidelines, but obviously everyone disagrees. No point in dragging this out for a week and wasting everyone's time. I have no objection to a snow close as keep. Jbh Talk 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC) The withdraw does not do anything since there is still a delete vote and I have not changed my opinion but I do not object to snow either. Last edited: 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Why nominate it then? I specifically asked for help doing that myself, and you "helpfully" did it for me instead. Now you're withdrawing, making my case even more untenable. The article is trash, it fails WP:GNG miseably, yet people below are basically shilling for it by saying that GNG is wrong(!). Shouldn't they go start their own website with lowered standards? This is nuts. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    This is heading towards a Snow Keep based on what I see as really bad arguements. Some things are pointless. This AfD is one of those things. If someone other than an IP who has been bludgeoning the AfD and narrowly avoiding a block for attacks and disruption agreed with my assessment it might be worth continuing. In this case three admins and several very experienced editors think that this is some exception to what I understand to be Wikipedia's notability criteria. No one is going to close this as other than keep. Sometimes the Wikipedia community collectively makes what one thinks are bad, foolish or flat out wrong decisions and one must simply let it go and role with it - this is, in my opinion, one of those time and I see no point in forcing seven days of debate for a forgone conclusion. Jbh Talk 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC) My crappy mood is showing through. Sorry. Last edited: 00:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is the same conclusion I came to. The first 10 pages of Google Search have 3 forums, two blogs and ninety-five websites trying to sell the stuff. Searches in books, news and news archives, which I undertook as part of my due diligence in deleting unsourced parts of the article, are all similar. In doing so, I also noticed that Beurt SerVass doesn't have an article. I'm not a fan by any means, but that would actually be notable. Ditto the company bearing his name, I suppose. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 02:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Question – @ Jbhunley: I noticed that you removed the product comparison content from the article ( diff) and then restored it ( diff), just prior to nominating the article for deletion ( diff). Then in your nomination, you base part of your deletion rationale upon the content you restored. Why? Sorry, but on the surface, this comes across as a potential bit of gaming to further qualify deletion. North America 1000 03:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Northamerica1000: I started pulling out things which I thought were problems but I quickly saw that I would end up effectivly stubbing it - without sources to support notability. So I restored what I cut away, so I would not be accused of gaming by butchering the article before nominating it, and nominated it for deletion. Jbh Talk 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    That's exactly what I had done in the first place, only to be accused of "blanking" the page. You remove a shoddy ref and it's allied claim, then another claim that rested on the ref has to go. That should say a lot about the strength of the article. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 05:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Only one of those are what could be considered significant coverage as is reqired by GNG;
  1. IBJ Bar Keepers Friend parent lands new headquarters normal course of business announcement
  2. Huffington Post How To Remove Scratches From Dishes: Bar Keepers Friend Product placement this is not an article with reporting as such/Mostly a reprint of Lifehacker blog entry [1].
  3. Old Home Journal "Its a great old product. A scouring powder that really works..." Advert/passing mention.
  4. Times Union - a blog titled Removing soap scum from shower doors – 4 methods and a winner!! - really?
  5. Homebrewers handbook "Bar Keepers Friend is a general cleaning agent that works particularly well on stainless steel..." Passing mention/product use instructions
None of these actually talk about the product and all of them, as well as the many similar articles, simply say it is a good cleaner, maybe mention some ingredients, and say what it can be used for. The Allbusiness article, on the other hand, does have some in depth coverage - it is the one good article mentioned in the previous AfD - however it is insufficient on its own to get this past WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Jbh Talk 03:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 04:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I would just add that, to my eye, "Allbusiness" (which is really lifted from "Indiana Business Journal") is actually the single worst reference here. There's no way that shlock can be considered neutral, as companies pay to be listed on the site, and presumably in the previous print incarnation. WP:GNG states that "sources need editorial integrity". No byline, no criticism, no ref. I mean, right??? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 04:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Indiana Business Magazine seems to have been legit "Indiana Business magazine is published by Indianapolis-based Curtis Publishing Inc., which continues to produce the Saturday Evening Post. Curtis also published various state business guides, directories and community-profile magazines." [2] Do you have any evidence it was a "pay-to-play" PR shop or otherwise not independent? Jbh Talk 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I suppose I'll dig for some. In the meantime, I'd point you back at your own quote. "...business guides, directories and community-profile newspapers." I've worked for such a company here in Ottawa on two separate occasions, delivering flyers, phone books, the "Auto Trader", etc. What they produce is not "news" by any stretch. Also, in that vein, media consolidation has largely forced any firm with a printing press to run anything through in hopes of making a buck. Oh, it may also be of interest that the editor in 1994 was Cory SerVaas. In case that seems like a coincidence (in spite of the uncommon name), Cory was preceded in the job by (wait for it...) Beurt SerVaas! I'd say that's a bit conflict-y, no?
/info/en/?search=The_Saturday_Evening_Post#Editors 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 05:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not finding anything to reinforce my direct allegation, but I believe my last point above puts the nail in the coffin of that particular ref. We cannot assume editorial integrity of a magazine that says wonderful things about a consumer product, when they're both produced by the same owners! That shouldn't even be controversial. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Here are two book references I found from Google Scholar:
Book references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=dOS38515sg4C&dq=%22bar+keepers+friend%22&q=Ber+Keepers+Friend#v=onepage&q=Bar%20Keepers%20Friend&f=false “Mary Ellen’s Guide to Good Enough Housekeeping” by Mary Ellen Pinkham and Dale Burg Macmillan, 2002, ISBN  0-312-28567-1

https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=nkyrOr_jpEEC&dq=%22bar+keepers+friend%22&q=Bar+Keepers+Friend#v=snippet&q=Bar%20Keepers%20Friend&f=false“2,001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets” by Jeff Bredenberg Readers Digest Association, 2004 ISBN  0-7621-0489-9

Suppose that Wikipedia decides to have an article about a product. When you Google for the product name, you will find some articles that talk about how to use the product, maybe even some sites offering to *sell* the product. Neither of these would argue against us having an article. The 300,000 Google hits (including reliable sources, and many sites not affiliated with the manufacturer) appear sufficient to indicate this is a respectable cleaning product that is widely used, even when you ignore every sales site. See also ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Cleaning products. This turns out to be a large category with many individual products such as Ajax cleanser and Comet (cleanser). See also Cleaning agent, List of cleaning agents and 20 Mule Team Borax. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
None of that, however, is significant coverage per GNG. In Mary Ellen's Guide to Good Enough Housekeeping a dozen passing mentions do not add up to significant coverage. The other book you link, 2001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets has no preview available. Does it have significant coverage or is it just more uses for the product? As to the rest WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jbh Talk 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I've updated the Bredenberg link for '2001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets' and it should now open to show you the hits. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I only see three mentions. One that is a 'how to use', one which just mentions its name and an index entry. Am I missing something? Jbh Talk 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You would expect a notable cleaning product to be mentioned favorably in books about cleaning, assuming there is no corporate connection or hint of advertising. (Unclear how a cleaning product could achieve any other type of fame). On page 44 Bredenberg treats this product as the equivalent of Comet (cleanser) for a particular task. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
In reading other articles in the list provided by NA1k, it seems there are many ways. Advertising, controversies, mergers and acquisitions resulting in disparate use of names in different markets, etc. Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with how a cleaner is used, or how well it works. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
They sell other products too. I don't see why they'd be particularly biased. Nfitz ( talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You not seeing a thing /= a ref being kosher. A Home Depot store manager, recommended a product Home Depot does sell, not one they don't. This is not rocket surgery. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I still think WP:GNG has been met, and this is a keep. Nfitz ( talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You already voted "Keep". Do you think saying it more often will make your argument stronger? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Why do you have to respond to everything? Do you think if you get the last word against everyone who disagrees with you, it will make your argument stronger? Nfitz ( talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't think you've adequately understood my question. What I'm asking is how you merge a namespace with a list. As you seem to have the world by the arse, feel free to grace me with your acumen. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I understand your question. I simply was surprised that all those articles exist, and am even more confused why anyone thinks that this one should be any different. Fix the article, fine - it clearly has issues. But delete it? I don't see any reason to be rude - it's your tendency to do so, that gets you into trouble. Nfitz ( talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
No, you really didn't. First off, I said everything on that list has an article. Why would you yell my own assertion back at me? Secondly, "Good grief" is not politeness. If you find the word "arse" to be offensive in a context where it didn't refer to you, that's your issue. I use all the words in the OED, buddy. Now, what was that about rudeness??? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm starting to realise why you keep getting banned. You've got a major attitude problem! Nfitz ( talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
This is not the place for your mudslinging, OK? If you want to keep pushing the ad hominem button, have the courtesy to do it on my talk page, or yours, or anywhere else. You're being ridiculous. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm being ridiculous? You took offence at "good grief". How is that possibly anything, anyone would ever take offence at? It was merely an interjection of surprise. No, this isn't the place for mudslinging - but I'm surprised one would start slinging mud, and then say that. Nfitz ( talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I wrote in 2012, this is an iconic product of very long standing and I have difficulty imagining how we are improving the encyclopedia if we remove this. I would find the available sources sufficient to show notability. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 06:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    "Iconic" is a weasel word and/or puffery. As I said elsewhere, I had literally never heard of this stuff until happening across the WP article today, despite having heard of every other product listed on the page; yes, even "Zud"! Just as that shouldn't matter to the debate here, neither should your view of the product. By the by, it's...uh, lovely that you happened to find this page after almost five years! 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 06:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I was referring to your sarcastic comment about their reappearance 5 years later. It's pretty easy to see from their edit history that they regularly contribute to AFD discussions, and that they were going through new AFDs just now. Not surprisingly, they recognized the product name, and edited. Is it possible that you are not that familiar with this product, because it is primarily an American product, and you don't live in the USA? I must admit it's not common here in Ontario - though not entirely unheard of. Nfitz ( talk) 07:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
An editor's previous opinions on an article are relevant, or else they wouldn't be posted here. US products are advertised on TV...which we in Ontario get piped in from Detroit, Buffalo or Rochester. I've heard of Zud, which is equally (un)popular here. Nevertheless, my position to delete is based on the same internet they get down there, or that you do. It's a trash article, whose only purpose is to let people know that a cleaner exists. Well, the SerVaas family owns newspapers or whatever, so they don't need free advertising! Now, unless you have more ad hominem insults, I think you've made whatever contribution to this debate that you can. Bye. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There's some Zud under my sink. The article has issues - no one disagrees with that. This debate isn't about whether the article has issues - issues can be fixed. This debate is about whether the article should exist. They are two almost entirely unrelated issues. You act like the product is unusual. However for "bar keepers friend" one gets over 300,000 hits. That's not a rare product. Nfitz ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
A thing being common /= a thing being notable. I'm not acting like anything. How do you not know this after 11 years on here??? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 07:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Why again the rudeness? Why the straw men? I'm simply trying to understand your strong objection to this article in particular, compared to similar equivalent products, such as Vim, Comet, or Ajax. Nfitz ( talk) 08:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The primary editor arguing for deletion seems to be doing so on the basis of some combination of his personal unfamiliarity with the subject of the article and the fact that primary sources about a product that was predominantly established 50 years before the advent of the internet does not have significant enough internet coverage for his tastes --300,000 google hits notwithstanding.

I appreciate that the article could be stronger, but I disagree that it is merely and advertisement. The comparisons with other products and statements as to its value are there to establish notability for the subject, not to advertise it. The factual information is not, so far as I can tell, in dispute, so as to whether or not the validity of an industry mag as a reference is made "suspicious" by having as the editor the son of an industrial manufacturer is largely irrelevant in my book, mainly due to the plentitude of other references. Industrial participation does tend to run in families, and that does not inherently make their behavior unethical. As to whether or not iconic is a weasel-word, I can understand that assertion, but I personally find that term fairly apt. This is a product that has stood the test of time with, so far as I can tell, very little alteration, while commonly being recommended by word of mouth. Word of mouth is how I found out about it, and its effectiveness is why I was surprised there wasn't an article about it, so I created one. The tendency to nominate articles for deletion mostly because the subjects don't *seem* important to you is one of the significant activities that discourages diversity among our editors, and in my mind, negatively impacts the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a general reference, both by decreasing the range of its content and by contributing to our poor reputation, as a very political place where female and minority perspectives tend to get deleted by young white men who have the leisure time to be relentlessly insulting to everyone who disagrees with them. I think this cleaning product is notable enough in and of itself to have an article, and that serves the interests of readers like me who do most of the household cleaning for our families. To delete it seems arbitrary and whimsical and not the rigorous enforcement of policy the nominator seems to think his actions embody. Netmouse ( talk) 11:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • No, Zud is not similar in composition, it is much simpler and cruder. It is also prone to scratching glass, as it uses silica and pumice as abrasives, unlike Barkeeper's Friend which uses a softer feldspar. Barkeeper's Friend also contains a surfactant, which Zud doesn't, so doesn't need additional soaps or detergent in use. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it was mentioned above that there are 95 websites selling this product. That sounds like a compelling case for notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    What I actually said was that, of the first ten pages of Google results, 95% of them are selling it. IOW, you're compelled by a reason other than WP:N. This is to the detriment of Wikipedia. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    That's not what you actually said. Besides, I personally believe that it is better to apply common sense than to insist on rigidly adhering to policy. Furthermore, it is both hilarious and preposterous that you have the nerve to talk about anything being a detriment to this project. All you are doing is wasting the time of people who are actually interested in building an encyclopedia. I'll ask you a variant on the question you uproariously asked BMK below: how can you possibly believe that you have anything further to add to this conversation? Lepricavark ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Andy Dingley in full. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "I agree with" simply means that I'm citing the same reasons as they did, so, yes, it is a valid reason to keep. You, on the other hand, have been warned on AN/I about WP:BLUDGEON, so you need to stop responding to every !vote posted here before some admin sees your behavior as being disruptive and blocks you for it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since when did the number of web sites selling a product or being "well known" and/or "unique" but having no significant coverage in independent RS pass GNG? Three hundred thousand trivial mentions dating back eighty years do not add up to significant coverage. If this were some new product with the same quality of sources (Lots of trivial mentions that say nothing beyond, shocking I know, that a cleaner cleans stuff; a single article in a regional business magazine; the MDS data sheet for its primary component; and citations to the product's own web site.) we would be discussing, at most, whether it should have been tagged {{ db-advert}} and definitly not heading towards a snow keep.

    We have notability criteria and content standards for a reasons, including to ensure that the topic is both encyclopedic and can be covered in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Usage instructions and primary sources lead to an article which is neither. Show me how independent reliable sources can be used to write an encyclopedic article that talks about the product - say its history, why it's unique, what effect it has had on the history of cleaning products etc - and I will withdraw this nomination and !vote keep myself. Jbh Talk 18:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Yet I am positive that we do not have a notability criterion that says trivial mentions somehow 'stack' and that we do address this issue in WP:GHITS specificly as an arguement to avoid. Jbh Talk 18:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, that essay means absolutely nothing to me as it tends to dismiss arguments that I believe are valid. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
"I'm fairly certain..." /= "reliable source". There are 633k results for "toenail art"...you gonna go write the article now? 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
No, because the topic doesn't interest me. Also, I'm not obligated to write anything. This is a volunteer website. I'm giving my time and receiving no compensation for it. So drop your condescending attitude. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I added another source within the box I provided above. See "addendum". North America 1000 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    The only thing that article says about the product it taken verbatim from the company's About Us page.

    There may be more information available about the company that would justify an article, this page could then be redirected to a section in the company's page. I could definitly support that. Jbh Talk 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

    "The only thing that article says about the product it (sic) taken verbatim..." is not true. The Packaging World article ( link) includes a great deal of content about the product's manufacturing and production. Only the second paragraph of the 14-paragraph Packaging World article contains content that is also on the company's website, and within this second paragraph, it's not all verbatim; only the first three sentences within it have verbatim content. The rest of the article is not on the company's website. North America 1000 19:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obviously notable, you only have to plug the name into a Google News search to see that. Admittedly, products are somewhat tricky in terms of notability, but as a UK version of this article I'd suggest Brasso which is an equally notable but equally poor (and should be improved) article. Neither, however, are non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Google is not a recognized criterion for WP notability. If it's so notable, it should be easy to find refs that aren't trash. I went through the first ten pages of Google Search results, and there wasn't one solid ref. 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yes it is obviously notable, and meets GNG. I rarely am on the "keep" side of AfD discussions but this one is a slam-dunk. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note Coretheapple is a major contributor to this article, and is the first user to revert my deletion of unsupported claims with bad references. Thanks for your opinion! 184.145.42.19 ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh I don't know if you can call me a "major" contributor. I did revert one of your edits, and earlier I excised some promotional content. My main interest is in creating an article on "Zud," a similar product, but alas there is a paucity of sourcing. Why cleaning powders don't interest The New York Times is beyond me. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I've withdrawn the AfD but FFS if something is obviously notable should it not be trivially easy to come up with a couple of independent reliable sources that provide significant in depth coverage that demonstrate that notability? That is, after all, why we differentiate between WP:N and the dictionary definition of notable. Jbh Talk 19:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I could be wrong, but I think the fact that there is one "delete" !vote (the 184 IP) disqualifies the AfD from being withdrawn by the nominator. If all the !votes were "keep" you could withdraw it, because there would then be no "delete" votes, and the net result would be to keep the article. As I said, I might have that wrong, but that's my understanding. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I did have the idea it'd make a great DYK. E Eng 02:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This cleanser has been a household product in the United States for at least a century. It's like Ajax (cleaning product), but can also remove things like hard water spots and rust. Here's some mentions: 1, 2, 3, 4. — Maile ( talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    • User:Maile66, are you saying Ajax can't get rid of those spots? What about Comet? I thought it was all the same stuff. While I have your ear, what do you prefer-- Brillo Pads or S.O.S Soap Pads? And do such pads come without soap powder in the US? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
      • The pads are just steel wool, which you can buy in various degrees of coarseness at pretty much any hardware store, and maybe even some of the huge mega-supermarkets out there in the US (but not here in Manhattan, where the supermarkets are mostly less "super" and more "market". ) Whenever I go out-of-town to do a show and I'm confronted by the mega-markets, I have trouble finding stuff in all that space, and then making choices when I do find where what I'm looking for is located. (Oh, my family was a Brillo famiiy, but my wife's was an SOS family, and that's what we use.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
This thread is destined for the Off-Topic Hall of Fame. E Eng 04:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Is there a barnstar for that? Or perhaps a statuette fashioned from steel wool? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSUSEFULL, EEng. I guess I've never seen, or looked for, steel wool in the hardware store. So, BMK, you travel the country to buy Brillo pads? That's exciting. I'm still interested in Maile66's response; they're an administrator and so they should be good at cleaning things. Drmies ( talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
No, generally when I work outside of NYC, I go shopping to buy food, because if I ate out every night, I wouldn't have any salary left. I can't recall ever buying Brillo (or SOS, or steel wool, for that matter) when I'm out of town. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I find no road trip is complete without a stop at one of the better retail establishments for some steel wool. I find the No. 000 especially... soothing. Great for exfoliating. E Eng 02:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Barkeeper's Friend (and Zud) are unusual in that they contain oxalic acid. This is uncommonly good at removing inorganic mineral staining from metals (i.e. water stain, rust), and commonly good at removing staining from non-metals. It's the convenient version of the old trick for cleaning a metal pan (canonically aluminium) by boiling up rhubarb or rhubarb leaves in it. It's also one of those products where you think, "If they hadn't been making that for a hundred years, they'd never get to make it new today". Certainly I wear gloves around it. There are health-nut life-hack web sites out there saying, "Don't get ripped off by Big Cleaner, just use bulk oxalic acid instead." This is stupid advice, it removes the abrasive from these cleaners, 100% oxalic acid is also not a household chemical to have just hanging around. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:11, 1 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bar_Keepers_Friend_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089513574"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE