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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vel Soap[edit]

Vel Soap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product lacks references. damiens.rf 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Duplicate vote: AntonioMartin (talkcontribs) has already cast a vote above.
No, what shows notability is in-depth discussion of the subject in reliable independent sources. Was there a product recall? Was there independent scientific research into the product? Was the product discussed in detail in Soaps Monthly or Surfactants Now or Detergents Digest? All you have done so far is prove that it existed, and that is not enough in the context of Wikipedia. YSSYguy (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added by Sam Sailor are the manufacturer itself; four words ("Vel", "Colgate-Palmolive" and "Denmark") in a Table in the book by Kuo-Yann Lai; and a transcript of a commercial advertising the subject with two passing mentions in the book by Jim Cox. Contrary to his assertion, none of these result in the subject passing the GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entire coverage of the subject in the Oxford Press book amounts to nine words. That is not significant coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2016 (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.