Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OxiClean

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OxiClean

A product whose apparent claim to fame is solely based on the spokesperson, Billy Mays. In this case, notability is not inherent, nor does popularity (or fame) equate to notability as given in guidelines. There are no references give, and as such, none of the information is verifiable. Given the famous nature of this product, one would imagine that there are plenty of secondary sources, but after scouring basic Google (and Blogs and Books and Scholar), the best are simply trivial mentions, such as sales hype or hints, or of similar nature. As the article reads, it is very close to a simple advertisement, but the lack of available sources indicates it will never be anything beyond that. Charles D. Ward (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's also this and this. Zagalejo^^^ 19:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo, sources do seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that Billy Mays promoted it in advertisements does not mean that e can't write about its chemical components or whether there are doubts about its claims. People consulted Wikipedia for information about Lipitor without Robert Jarvik telling them to do so. I agree that this could be written in a less spammy way, and perhaps even given a redirect to the less exciting sodium percarbonate when people click on the blue link OxiClean. Mandsford (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable despite their completely annoying informercials. JBsupreme (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (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.