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. Melsaran (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbing Bubbles[edit]

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

Expired prod based on notability on article on mascots for a household cleaner Carlossuarez46 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The mascot isn't notable. Maybe it used to be, if it was part of a large advertising campaign, but not anymore. They're now just an image on a label. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not a temporary quality. If once notable, a topic is notable in perpetuity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand The scrubbing bubble characters have been associated with the product in major television and print campaigns for at least 19 years and numerous references can be found to them in popular culture...

For example: Pages about the mascots [1] Mentions [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Places Selling Memorabilia [9] [10] [11] [12] This prank [13] (which was mentioned in Wired) [14] a Tribute Screensaver [15] We can see how long they've around as referenced by this essay about cg shaders in the 1980s [16] followed up by images on this artist's portfolio [17] and a mention in an interview with Pixar Animator Glenn McQueen [18] at IGN. They were also used in a scientific study published in "Sex Roles" Journal, although the full text is behind a pay-wall [19]

I admit that it's hard to source a campaign that really hit its stride two decades ago, but I feel that the continued active use of the mascot and the numerous cultural references stand as evidence of significant cultural awareness of the characters.

I would, however like to see the article expanded to include information about the product itself, as the phrase "scrubbing bubbles" and actual chemical combination is covered quite a bit as well [20][21] [22] This one bridges the mascot and the product [23].

Also, the phrase "scrubbing bubbles" as referencing this product can be seen in this article title from New York Magazine [24] as well as in the title of this article from Wired [25], lastly is this not-so-clever play on words which is referencing the phrase in a new context to be cheeky[26].

So to sum it up, I think the product and the mascot are culturally significant and should be kept, cleaned and expanded.--Torchwood Who? 05:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; notability seems easy to establish, as it's discussed in these 100+ marketing books. Dicklyon 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though I'd lean toward making the article about the product with a section on the mascots. This just seems backwards. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Ryoung122 10:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Out of all the advertising campaigns that come and go, there are a handful... like Ronald McDonald, Tony the Tiger, and these guys... that become legendary in televison and magazine ads. I sympathize with DHartung's concern that this is backwards, but an article called Dow bathroom cleaner would not last long. In advertising, the first job is to get someone's attention; the second to have people remember the ad; and the third (the tricky part) is getting them to remember what product was being advertised. Many remember the scrubbing bubbles, but a smaller number remember that Dow was being adverstised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Torchwood Who?. Culturally-significant advertising characters with at least 3 decades og history. "Scrubbing Bubbles" is also the name of the product itself, so there is room for expansion along the lines of similar household-product articles (see Lysol (cleaner)) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well known advertising campaign, it should be close to trivial to find many sources on this. Would not oppose a merger into an article on the cleanser itself, but any such article would soon be dominated by this campaign, which is that product's chief claim to fame; better to redirect the product to this page than vice versa. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Incredibly famous/memorable ad campaign, and easily expanded and sourced, as shown by Torchwood Who?. Also, they're totally adorable, which ought to be a notability criterion. ;) Pinball22 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This discussion is looking like a speedy keep per the Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I also am convinced of the notability of Scrubbing Bubbles and think the article should be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is probably the most surprised I've ever been to see something on AfD...aside from the fake Rolling Stones AfD a week or two ago...the Scrubbing Bubbles are more than notable, they are iconic, like Orville Reddenbacher or Mr. Whipple. Smashville 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and break out the WP:SNOW shovel already. There's plenty of sourcing around. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Its moment of fame has passed, but product has not accumulated any independent sources to demonstrate notability. Notability cannot be inherited from a clever advertising agency or actor. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in over 100 books doesn't count as independent sources? Dicklyon 15:02, 21 September 2007 (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.