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 per WP:SNOW as nobody agrees with the nomination. The article has been substantially improved per WP:HEY so the chances of a turnaround are negligible. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Ami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to be non-notable. Google search shows passing mentions, churnalism, and run-of-the-mill press releases and rehashed press releases. Waggie (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least in my house, this was literally a household name. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I would be astounded if there weren't more out there, but it is tough to weed out the hits in French. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting and coming up with all the links, clearly that took time and effort and it's appreciated. Note that French language sources would be acceptable, providing they meet WP:RS. We aren't picky about the language of a source, so long as it's reliable. It may or may not be a household name, but the problem we face is that there's a variety of documentation about how to use the subject (such as what you linked to), there doesn't seem to be that much about the subject. Please read WP:SIGCOV. The bottom line is that notability is, more or less, about whether or not there's enough content to write a substantive article, and I'm not sure we can glean too much about the subject for writing a substantive article. Waggie (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of the results of a Google search for a common household product will naturally be worthless, but a product that has been on the shelves for over a century does get written about. There are old issues of Consumer Reports, for example, and discussions of their advertising methods. It's even in Isaac Asimov's autobiography. He recalls a box his family kept in the bathroom when he was a child, and how in his childish naïveté he was impressed that the company was so conscientious that if the company ever found that the power had scratched, they would change the slogan to "Only Scratched Once!" [9]. Really, it's just a matter of searching harder. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My last reply here, I think, then I'll let it go for folks to decide. Thanks for commenting. Could you point out which sources you feel actually meet WP:SIGCOV? Waggie (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, How about this book chapter? Cross, Mary (2002). "Bon Ami Scouring Powder". A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-313-09262-6. OCLC 1029270577. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, thanks for that! There's a paragraph spanning pages 3-4 in that chapter that discuss Bon Ami that looks promising, and that I would consider as a step towards meeting SIGCOV. However, that's only one source and SIGCOV calls for multiple sources (it's quite consistent in the plural) and links to the essay WP:3REFS for further guidance. If we allow a single source to establish notability, then we don't have a balanced viewpoint for readers. Also, is the slogan or it's fairly ordinary origins really the only thing that people care about with this product? Please remember that simply because something is well-known doesn't make it notable. YouTuber's don't get articles simply because they have a large audience, there has to be substantial coverage to support that they truly stand out in some way. Anyway, that's my thought process here. Thank you! Waggie (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now I have WP:THREE encyclopedia entries (also listed in the further reading section), plus the other sources listed above. We have kept articles with less SIGCOV than this. (This will also be my last comment, as I feel as if I'm taking too much room :) ) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross, Mary (2002). "Bon Ami Scouring Powder". A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-313-09262-6. OCLC 1029270577.
• Dorman, Evelyn S. (1994). "Bon Ami". In Jorgensen, Janice (ed.). Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands. Vol. 2. St. James Press. pp. 66–68. ISBN 9781558623378. OCLC 756196954.
• Woodward, A. (2003). "Faultless Starch/Bon Ami Company". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 55. St. James Press. pp. 142–145. ISBN 9781558626966. OCLC 769044999.

• Keep as per Waggie and XOReaster. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even though I do not find the RS compelling and in depth, I am convinced that the product is notable. There are sources such as the Kansas City Business Journal here Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The coverage in A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture is excellent: a page and a half of specific, detailed history of the product in an independent published book, which itself lists 3 references at the end of the passage on page 4. :) No doubts. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2020 (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.