Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Aspergum: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:02, 15 July 2007 editJreferee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,390 edits Added keep reasoning← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:51, 5 March 2023 edit undoSheepLinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots50,352 editsm →[]: fix font tags linter errorsTag: AWB 
(26 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''speedy keep''', nomination and other delete opinions withdrawn due to article revision ] 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|?}}
:{{la|Aspergum}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Aspergum}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. ] 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. ] 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::'''Keep''' As the nominating individual, after reviewing the revised article, I withdraw my nomination for deletion, and now elect to keep it as well. ] 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


<s>*'''Comment''' Er, I nominated this like I always do -- what did I break?? See me on my talk page to avoid clutter. ] 08:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</s> *<s>'''Comment''' Er, I nominated this like I always do -- what did I break?? See me on my talk page to avoid clutter. ] 08:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</s></br>
*'''Delete.''' The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". --] 10:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) *<s>'''Delete.''' The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". --] 10:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</s> Change to '''keep'''. It's much, much better now. Well done. --] 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''', I've expanded and referenced it. Its notability lies in its role in the recognition of aspirin's usefulness as an antithrombotic agent. ] 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong keep''', I've expanded and referenced it. Its notability lies in its role in the recognition of aspirin's usefulness as an antithrombotic agent. ] 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 10:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</small> *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 10:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</small>
* '''Comment''' Great, but what if the pain is in your jaw? <font color="#000066">''']'''</font> 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) * '''Comment''' Great, but what if the pain is in your jaw? ] 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::And does it lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight? ] 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC) ::And does it lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight? ] 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
'''Keep''' - The notability criteria that applies to medication and everything else on Misplaced Pages is ]. Aspergum has received enough coverage in ] ] so that a ] artice can be written on the topic. Thus, keep. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></font> 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - The notability criteria that applies to medication and everything else on Misplaced Pages is ]. Aspergum has received enough coverage in ] ] so that a ] artice can be written on the topic. Thus, keep. -- <span style="font-family:Kristen ITC;">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></span> 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' The product has been on the market for decades, and may even have lost its trademark by now. It's (a) an effective method of treating sore throat pain in that its design keeps the analgesic in the mouth and throat; (b) a more sensible alternative than antibiotics for treatment of minor throat discomfort; and (c) the ultimate in "keep out of reach of children" products, with each piece of chewing gum containing a dose of aspirin. And yes, Gordon, it does lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight :) If that's not a part of the warning label, it should be. Maybe there's no media coverage, but how often is Tylenol in the news these days? ] 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''', has been rewritten and now passes ] and ]. ] • <sup>(((] • ])))</sup> 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Agree with Jreferee. ] 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Encyclopedic and well written article with good refrences, satisfies ] and ]. ] 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
* {{check mark}} '''Keep''' clearly an encyclopedic topic that passes ] and ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
* <s>'''Merge''' I don't see how it wouldn't serve better as merged with the other analegic chewing gums. ] 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) </s> <small>This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. </small>
*'''Keep''' Why not merge all the wine articles together? --] 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep, rename'''. The usual ] at WikiProject Drugs is to headword the generic name and create redirects for brandnames, which would seem to support renaming it as something along the lines of 'aspirin-based chewing gum' and merging in any other aspirin-based chewing gums (none of which appear to exist currently), with appropriate redirects. It might be worth noting that, per '']'', Aspergum as a brandname doesn't appear to be used outside the USA & Canada. ] 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Both as a brand name and a generic, it crops up on a few UK NHS documents: see . Never actually seen it here, though. ] 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Er, the top few hits at least appear to be a list of drugs NOT to be prescribed within the NHS. ] 05:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Ah - should have explained. They do exist here; these lists are the so-called "Black List" that was introduced way back to save the NHS money by banning prescription of brand-name drugs in favour of generics. ] 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ok; I wonder why it's not listed as a UK brand in ''Martindale''? I do still think it might be better moved to a generic title, but I seem to be in a minority here... ] 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', excellent ] by Jreferee and Gordonofcartoon, notability is established. --] | ] 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Expansion work done on article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per the ] standard. ] 06:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' No problems at all ] <sup>]]</sup> 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 15:51, 5 March 2023

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 speedy keep, nomination and other delete opinions withdrawn due to article revision GRBerry 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Aspergum

Aspergum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. Spazure 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep As the nominating individual, after reviewing the revised article, I withdraw my nomination for deletion, and now elect to keep it as well. Spazure 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And does it lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight? Gordonofcartoon 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Both as a brand name and a generic, it crops up on a few UK NHS documents: see Google. Never actually seen it here, though. Gordonofcartoon 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, the top few hits at least appear to be a list of drugs NOT to be prescribed within the NHS. Espresso Addict 05:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah - should have explained. They do exist here; these lists are the so-called "Black List" that was introduced way back to save the NHS money by banning prescription of brand-name drugs in favour of generics. Gordonofcartoon 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok; I wonder why it's not listed as a UK brand in Martindale? I do still think it might be better moved to a generic title, but I seem to be in a minority here... Espresso Addict 20:03, 16 July 2007 (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.