Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaphor

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. W.marsh 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphor

This AfD was orphaned; listing it now. The nominator's reason was "nominate for deletion b/c of lack of notability". Elkman - (Elkspeak) 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. The only reason I found it was because it was in the orphaned category from June. --Sable232 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have this stuff in my house right now, it's probably in almost all pharmacies, and 291,000 g-hits isn't too shabby. →Ed Gl 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication why this is
notable. Seraphimblade 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. I found two reputable scientific studies of Aquaphor here and here. I only added a link to the Kentucky study to the article, as there was just an abstract for the other one. I also tried to find some financials for the product, but I got tired of trying to decipher the records of the giant German multinational that actually owns the brand. However, I submit that the two scientific studies are sufficient for notability.--
talk) 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to petroleum jelly. Vaseline redirects there, so it is safe to assume that this page should as well. I don't think a single brand is notable enough to need it's own page. --Sable232 16:26, 31 January 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.