Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlear Nasal Spray

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 delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Sources and external links typically don't mention the specific topic, or are company literature or advertisements. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xlear Nasal Spray

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

Fails WP:Product, reads as an advertisement. Indication of notability is unsourced and contentious. Aka042 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally agree that it fails WP:PRODUCT. The second statement in the article "only nasal spray etc." sounds like an ad. There is a source from the British Medical Journal (reliable) that establishes that the medication does apparently have its uses, but there's nothing from major sources to prove that it's actually notable - the BMJ after all does experiments with hundreds and thousands of drugs. In short, no sources from outside the medical field, who otherwise test all these medications anyway. The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a medication found in journals. If it is included in the journals, it is probably written about elsewhere too. Dew Kane (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a number of other sources about it that weren't journals and I also formatted the references that were already in there. Silver seren^C 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic's notability has been established by the numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article is not about Xlear at all. It is partly about the active ingredient xylitol and partly about Lon Jones; but not one of the inline citations actually mentions the product by name. This is bad sourcing at its ugliest and most misleading. Reyk _YO! 07:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the external links, what about those? Just because the article is badly written is not one of the criteria for which it should be deleted. Silver seren^C 07:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links is the company's website. Another two, the MarketWire ones, are advertisements. The RedOrbit one is a rehash of the company website and of MarketWire. The Buzzle one is written by a paid marketer ie. it's another advertisement. The last, the Q&A at Natural Foods, is an interview with a guy who's spruiking the product (yet another advertisement). So yeah, none of it's any good. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can determine an interview to be an advertisement. And the reason why the article describes so much about xylitol is because the creation of xylitol was instrumental in the creation of the nasal spray. Silver seren^C 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That interview is just like those "interviews" you see on daytime TV talk shows where someone comes on to give a spiel about their wonderful product and the "interviewer" asks them a whole lot of convenient leading questions. And saying all those sources about xylitol that don't mention Xlear anywhere demonstrate notability for Xlear is wrong. It's like, if I wrote an article on the coffee shop down the road from my house and claimed it was notable because I can find a whole heap of sources about the Coffee bean. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and those last two links you added? Guess what they are. Ads. Reyk _YO! 08:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk, above; my assessment is the same. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets news coverage which are apparently all reliable sources, or at least Google news source says so. And the information here, is not found in the article for xylitol. One doctor decided to take something, and spray it in a new way, a new product to cure ear infection. Dream Focus 09:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 7 gnews hits [1], which merely verify its existence. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover every medical product in the world. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Wikipedia covers every plant, animal, and mineral in the world. If the medical product is notable enough to get coverage in the news somewhere, then why not have an article for it? It meets WP:GNG. What's the harm in people being able to look up information about any medication they use or have heard of, and finding information about it on the Wikipedia? Dream Focus 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - information is verifiable and sources seem to establish ample notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]