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. As noted below perhaps an Admin should keep an eye on the nominator. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zicam[edit]

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

This product is not WP:Notable enough to have a wikipedia article Khabboos (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Argument is unsupported by minimal WP:BEFORE D1. Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep product is obviously notable. This is a bad faith nomination by an editor with an agenda of POV pushing on alt med related articles. --McSly (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yes, this is a bad faith nomination. It's either gross incompetence or a WP:POINT violation. The background is found here: Talk:Homeopathy#Zicam. SMH! Khabboos just can't help being disruptive. This is just one bit of sand on the mile long beach of his disruptive behaviors, and a mile long section of beach has lots of sand on it. I suggest that editors begin to monitor him very closely:

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's currently topic banned from certain political (?) articles, but should also be topic banned from all Alternative medicine and Fringe articles, "broadly construed". -- Brangifer (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (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.