Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avacor (2nd nomination)
The question is not whether the "page" is any good--it's not, it's terrible.  The question is whether the ''topic '' is notable.  Per , there is in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, such as http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Damage-verdict-in-Avacor-hair-regrowth-scam-upheld-3517147.php http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435984764&Class_Lawyers_Win__Million_Over_HairLoss_Fix http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4liwdLy9APc http://www.clinicadepele.com.br/newsite/Arquivos/artigos/quedadecabelo/lasercapilar06.pdf  http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/320059971.html?dids=320059971:320059971&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+01%2C+2003&author=Robert+Cooke.+STAFF+WRITER&pub=Newsday+%28Combined+editions%29&desc=Is+This+Hair+Treatment+Just+a+Tease%3F&pqatl=google
— User:Logical, 16:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)