Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acuvue

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 of the debate was Keep. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acuvue

This page seems to be just an advertisement. Srleffler 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Srleffler 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think a good case has been made for keeping the page.--Srleffler 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup if advert/POV; it is a very notable mass-market product. MCB 06:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Popular brand name. Ben D. 06:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable brand of contact lenses. Capitalistroadster 07:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• If someone can expand the article and remove the advertisment-ness, keep it. If not, delete. Saberwyn 08:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This issue has surfaced many times before. When does a brand become notable enough for its own entry as opposed to a redirect to the comapny that makes or sells it? In this case, the article is simply a list of associated brandnames. I can't see how that is notable in-and-of itself? If there was a controversy, a history or some other dissociated aspect of the brand attached to it, then it would be clear. But as it stands, this is essentially empty so why not redirect to Vistakon or J&J? Dottore So 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue has surfaced enough times that WP:CORP was created to deal with the very question of product notability. Uncle G 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. By the iterated standards, shouldn't this be deleted then? Dottore So 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • According to WP:CORP it meets this standard: The product or service has been the subject of published works whose source is independent of the company itself.. "Acuvue" gets 96 hits on PubMed. Edwardian 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for this information. This certainly alters my opinion, although it would be nice if the page actually contained some content other than who makes them, and a list of their sub-brands.--Srleffler 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree. I added a couple of items to get the ball rolling. Edwardian 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable brand of contact lenses with large, wide-scale advertising. Mmmbeer 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:CORP (specifically Criteria for products and services), although the suggestion to redirect to Vistakon is a good one to reduce potential linkspam from on-line contact lens distributors. Edwardian 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, granted this page has been subject to spamming (hence it is on my watchlist), notability is easy to establish. If you recognize a brand immediately, it is notable, published works are not necessary. - 24.141.72.95 06:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CORP. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:21, 22 October 2005 (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.