Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salonpas

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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salonpas

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

Prod contested on the grounds of the number of Google hits. While that is true, most of those hits are from primary sources and resellers. Google News, however, comes up empty, and Google Scholar shows several trivial mentions of this drug in medical papers and a few false positives. Much of the article is a coatrack article regarding the drug maker's reaction to an FDA ruling. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual correction. Google News in fact comes up far from empty, so I would urge anyone commenting here to check out the search results linked above rather than take the nominator's word at face value. I would also point out that the WP:PROD was not contested on the basis of the number of Google web search hits, but on the content of the much more relevant Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News archive hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected about Google News, my search string was just "Salonpas", not the one linked to by the above template. Lots of false positives, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Of the many G News hits, about 3/4 are relevant, and of these, very few are truly significant. But the OTC article [1] gives the basic information reliably. The miscellaneous GNews hits are enough to show the product is in widespread use. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced that this is a notable health product, based on personal experience (its available at numerous different pharmacies), and any lack of adequate sources or evidence of excessive coverage of trivial details in this article can be overcome. This may be trimmed, but should stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be inclined, at this point, to withdraw my nomination based on an IAR acknowledgement that the number of trivial mentions of this drug in Google Scholar is enough to confer notability. Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and occasionally there are situations that warrant ignoring them. But personal experience and availability in drugstores do not confer notability per se. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, i guess i just want to indicate that there is an indication of strong evidence for notability which can then be researched. thanks for using g scholar. confession: i often forget to use this search.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and consider moving to a generic name. The current article contains borderline advert and a good bit of coatrack (see "Salonpas FDA approval and current monograph status"). That said, deletion is not for clean-up. I would suggest rewriting and moving the article to a generic discussion of transdermal analgesics. Although Salonpas is currently the only such patch sold in the USA, it is far from the only company making and selling similar patches around the world. Cnilep (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2010 (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.