Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depend

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depend undergarment (neé Depend)

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

Redirect to Dependency. A product should not have an article name that is a commonly used word regardless of market share. It is essentially product placement, although admittedly that probably wasn't the intention when the article was created in 2004. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Depend undergarment. FWiW, what about: Aspirin, Catseye, Cellophane, Dry ice, Escalator, Heroin, Kerosene, Lanolin, Laundromat, Linoleum, Mimeograph, Petrol, Primal Therapy, Scotch tape, Thermos, Touch-tone, Videotape, Webster's Dictionary, Yo-Yo, ZIP code and Zipper? Bzuk (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The undergarment is a well-known and -advertised product, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there's really no other reasonable target that I can see. A hatnote to Dependency is sufficient. Also, Depend undergarment (to which Bzuk has copied this article) should either redirect here or vice versa. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note Depend undergarment was created as a copy of Depend. The wiki-lawyers and the policy wonks don't like that sort of thing. Edit history and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogus attribution-less copy-and-paste "move" during the AFD discussion now fixed. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Depend undergarment, which is a better title; the articles are identical. Since Bzuk chose to make a copy of the article instead of moving it, we need a Redirect to maintain the history of this article. Another possibility would be to delete that article and move this one to Depend (undergarment), which may be more in line with Wikipedia naming style. One or the other should be preserved, as the product is clearly notable. The article could use some trimming and rewriting - there is too much detail about individual products lines, amounting to advertising - but AfD is not for article improvement. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I will undertake the trimming and rewriting of whatever article survives AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am striking out the word "redirect" above because it does not make my opinion clear: that the product itself is clearly notable, and that one or the other version of the existing articles about it should be a Keep. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-compliant copy is gone. The original remains, at the copied-and-pasted title. Please decide what to do with the original. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dependency and sprot due to advertising risk. Or dab and sprot as an equally weighted alternative. For either solution, definitely delete Depend undergarment and move current content there prior to enacting the solution, to comply with history policy. Four mainspace articles redirect to "Depend", meaning the undergarment, but because of uc/lc usage I don't think this is necessarily the primary topic for the word. JJB 06:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So does this mean you are of the opinion that there should NOT be any article about the product? Why not? Oops, I see that I also said "redirect" above, but I meant to say that one version or the other should be kept. I did not bother to make the case for the product's notability since I thought it was obvious. But this is an extremely high-profile product, one whose very advertisements make news [1] [2] [3] and whose product updates get covered in significant, legitimate news stories - Reuters for example. I did not want to add these things to the article until I knew which version was going to survive, but there is plenty of sourcing out there. It looks as if UncleG has fixed the duplicate article problem so I will start to work on the article. I agree with you that the product is not the primary usage of the word "Depend"; that is why "undergarment" needed to be added. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, there. I just did a complete rewrite, eliminated the excessive emphasis on product descriptions, and added multiple references including two from the New York Times. I invite anyone who based their !vote on the previous version to take a look at the article in its current form. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Close This debate is a total mess, thanks to the unilateral moves, copies, blankings, redirects, etc. It's not at all clear what is being debated. Are people seriously suggesting the article Depend undergarment be deleted? If so, upon what grounds? Close and renominate if there are any outstanding issues (remember that controversial redirects should be proposed at WP:RFC not here). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep I stumbled into this debate because I was indeed looking up Depends to see how it is spelled. Depend? Depenz? It's not an elegant item, but one which we might all use in time.

--User:bluefox79830 —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Here's the basic timeline of events.

User:Alan Liefting blanked Depend and redirected it to Wiktionary. User:This, that and the other then redirected it to Dependency.
I reverted the edits, bringing the article back, and was subsequently reverted by User:Alan Liefting. In the midst of the BRD cycle, User:Bzuk created a copy of the article at Depend undergarment.
The original article was reinstated, and User:Alan Liefting nominated it for deletion.
To resolve the duplicate article issue, User:Uncle G moved the original article to Depend undergarment, replacing the copy.
User:MelanieN undertook a complete rewrite of the article.

We currently stand with the nominated article at a new ___location (Depend undergarment) and a redirect at its original ___location (Depend). I think that covers everything. - Eureka Lott 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment hahaha hilarious - Alan Liefting should perhaps use a bit more common sense, but kudos to Eureka, Bzuk, Uncle G, and Melanie N for fixing this article to my satisfaction. The Steve 10:40, 15 May 2012 (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.