- 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. No consensus to delete. Proposal for merge can be discussed on the talk page if editors want to go forward with that. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Nexcare
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nexcare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded since it was previously prodded and deprodded, my bad - but the article is still failing notability policies, so time for an AfD review. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. A national brand by a major manufacturer is pretty much the opposite of non-notable AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. And that op-ed is deeply flawed because, bluntly, it fails
WP:AFG. It is not a valid deletion rationale. PS, I also de-prodded
Curad as a national brand with over 60 years of continuous use owned by a major medical supply company is also easily notable. Just because they haven't become
genericized trademarks like
Band-Aid doesn't make them on-notable.
oknazevad (
talk)
05:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum. You fail
WP:BEFORE in all your actions, too. Prodding
Elastoplast, a brand so notable that its name is as much a genericized trademark as Band-Aid in British English (a fact that is sourced in the article) proves you should not be AfD'ing anything, as you cannot bother to do the required work. This should be speedy closed as not in good faith.
oknazevad (
talk)
05:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if something is known to you. Others, like myself, might have never heard of it. Just because a company has a 60+ years history doesn't make it notable. The onus to prove notability is on the one's writing the article and wanting to keep it. We have policies I cited, and I did before - and all I see are press releases and mentions in passing. You fail to provide good argument (sources) outside WP:ITSNOTABLE; so if anyone needs a policy refresher, it's you. If you want to prove something is notable, best way is to find sources, like I did here. Please try to help with the spam, not help the spam. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum. You fail
WP:BEFORE in all your actions, too. Prodding
Elastoplast, a brand so notable that its name is as much a genericized trademark as Band-Aid in British English (a fact that is sourced in the article) proves you should not be AfD'ing anything, as you cannot bother to do the required work. This should be speedy closed as not in good faith.
oknazevad (
talk)
05:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The two-fold problem is that a) you're tagging articles that already demonstrate notability (Elastoplast already proved its notability with the dislctionary reference) and b) you keep misusing the term "spam" which specifically means an unsolicited commercial message. Unless it's paid editing, the word you're looking for is "cruft", which can be an issue, but is good faith editing.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Those are valid points, although I would dispute that a dictionary reference is enough for notability. It is indicative of notability, but not guaranteed. Anyway, I agree now that E...plast is notable, but well, we are here to discuss Nexcare. Which, pehraps, is not a spam - but it is rather 'crufty'... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- The two-fold problem is that a) you're tagging articles that already demonstrate notability (Elastoplast already proved its notability with the dislctionary reference) and b) you keep misusing the term "spam" which specifically means an unsolicited commercial message. Unless it's paid editing, the word you're looking for is "cruft", which can be an issue, but is good faith editing.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Oknazevad's original Keep vote, although I think that addendum was not entirely civil towards Piotrus. I am not in favor of a speedy keep, let's keep this discussion going please. I assume good faith for both Piotrus and Oknazevad. Let's try and keep things civil and have everyone assume good faith, those are Wikipedia policies after all. I have respect for both of you, please show respect for each other. Yetisyny ( talk) 07:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to 3M, which presently has no mention. A clear alternative to deletion ( WP:ATD-M) that will WP:PRESERVE appropriate content, rather than deleting it away. North America 1000 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. No consensus to delete. Proposal for merge can be discussed on the talk page if editors want to go forward with that. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Nexcare
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nexcare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded since it was previously prodded and deprodded, my bad - but the article is still failing notability policies, so time for an AfD review. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. A national brand by a major manufacturer is pretty much the opposite of non-notable AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. And that op-ed is deeply flawed because, bluntly, it fails
WP:AFG. It is not a valid deletion rationale. PS, I also de-prodded
Curad as a national brand with over 60 years of continuous use owned by a major medical supply company is also easily notable. Just because they haven't become
genericized trademarks like
Band-Aid doesn't make them on-notable.
oknazevad (
talk)
05:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum. You fail
WP:BEFORE in all your actions, too. Prodding
Elastoplast, a brand so notable that its name is as much a genericized trademark as Band-Aid in British English (a fact that is sourced in the article) proves you should not be AfD'ing anything, as you cannot bother to do the required work. This should be speedy closed as not in good faith.
oknazevad (
talk)
05:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if something is known to you. Others, like myself, might have never heard of it. Just because a company has a 60+ years history doesn't make it notable. The onus to prove notability is on the one's writing the article and wanting to keep it. We have policies I cited, and I did before - and all I see are press releases and mentions in passing. You fail to provide good argument (sources) outside WP:ITSNOTABLE; so if anyone needs a policy refresher, it's you. If you want to prove something is notable, best way is to find sources, like I did here. Please try to help with the spam, not help the spam. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum. You fail
WP:BEFORE in all your actions, too. Prodding
Elastoplast, a brand so notable that its name is as much a genericized trademark as Band-Aid in British English (a fact that is sourced in the article) proves you should not be AfD'ing anything, as you cannot bother to do the required work. This should be speedy closed as not in good faith.
oknazevad (
talk)
05:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The two-fold problem is that a) you're tagging articles that already demonstrate notability (Elastoplast already proved its notability with the dislctionary reference) and b) you keep misusing the term "spam" which specifically means an unsolicited commercial message. Unless it's paid editing, the word you're looking for is "cruft", which can be an issue, but is good faith editing.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Those are valid points, although I would dispute that a dictionary reference is enough for notability. It is indicative of notability, but not guaranteed. Anyway, I agree now that E...plast is notable, but well, we are here to discuss Nexcare. Which, pehraps, is not a spam - but it is rather 'crufty'... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- The two-fold problem is that a) you're tagging articles that already demonstrate notability (Elastoplast already proved its notability with the dislctionary reference) and b) you keep misusing the term "spam" which specifically means an unsolicited commercial message. Unless it's paid editing, the word you're looking for is "cruft", which can be an issue, but is good faith editing.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Oknazevad's original Keep vote, although I think that addendum was not entirely civil towards Piotrus. I am not in favor of a speedy keep, let's keep this discussion going please. I assume good faith for both Piotrus and Oknazevad. Let's try and keep things civil and have everyone assume good faith, those are Wikipedia policies after all. I have respect for both of you, please show respect for each other. Yetisyny ( talk) 07:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to 3M, which presently has no mention. A clear alternative to deletion ( WP:ATD-M) that will WP:PRESERVE appropriate content, rather than deleting it away. North America 1000 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.