Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend

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. (non-admin closure) Electric Catfish 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Keepers Friend

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

This stub page is an ad for a non-notable product BadDoggie (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG per:

Schouten, Cory (May 12, 2011). "Bar Keepers Friend parent lands new headquarters". Indianapolis Business Journal. Retrieved July 6, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Bar Keepers Friend". Indiana Business Magazine. April 1, 1994. Retrieved July 6, 2012. (subscription required)

Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed through editing. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very well known product of long standing, passes WP:GNG; check out the extensive GNews and GBooks hits for more evidence of this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Arxiloxos. Perhaps this is a COI, but, I use it ;-) (It's under my kitchen sink right now!) Sarah (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references in Google Books, product is more than 100 years old, and proposed deletion text does not provide a rationale for non-notability. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all "keep" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 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.