Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proactiv Solution (2nd nomination)

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. Although it's once again leaning towards promotional, the product itself appears notable (not just due to overadvertising). Articles does need to be balanced and non-promo (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proactiv Solution

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

The article was cleaned up significantly during the last AfD, in 2006 [1]. However, the subject still seems to be very borderline with respect to notability; most of the content in the current revision of the article could be merged with Benzoyl peroxide#Acne treatment. The 2002 People article appears to provide some coverage of the product (though it focuses on the product's creator more than the actual product), but I am not seeing much else that is independent of the subject. Guthy-Renker has been suggested as a merge target, but others have noted that there appears to be a consensus there against expanding the descriptions of the company's product lines. VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the Bieber connection with the named product in the popular press, combined with other existing coverage cited in the footnotes, is sufficient for a GNG pass as multiple, independently published instances of substantial coverage. While the article is not perfect, the topic strikes me as encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If notability were inherited from celebrity endorsements, then I agree that this product would pass with flying colors. The GNG also requires coverage to be intellectually independent of the subject, though. What sources have you found that appear to meet the GNG? VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, this should redirect to Rodan + Fields Dermatologists. If that company piece doesn't exist yet, this is fine. Far and away the most likely search term. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable product. Ryan Vesey 19:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and target for improvement. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete Is there any evidence that Proactive Solution acts differently from any other benzoyl peroxide product? If the active ingredient really is benzoyl peroxide, then I think it would be reasonable to redirect there. If reliable sources support the contention that this is truly a distinct product, then Keep would be my suggestion. -- Scray (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the only active ingredient is benzoyl peroxide, and the rest are listed as "inactive". Thus, changed from comment to delete. -- Scray (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has no bearing on product notability, no? Biosthmors (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think a product needs to have hard news coverage to be notable. Shlaer (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below to SummerPhD. What were your research methodologies? Biosthmors (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor coverage. Sourcing that is there discusses the developers of the product (mentioning the product but not discussing it) and G-R's advertising and promotion of the product (which is about G-R, not the product). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep. FWIW, this article gets more than 100 views a day, which is more than some of our featured articles. For all the delete votes, how rigorous were your research methodologies to determine this product was not notable? Biosthmors (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument here is not that no one reads it. There are solidly notable articles that probably aren't read for weeks at a time. The argument is that this product is not notable. (It's also worth noting that the back-and-forth with the COI editor certainly generates page views that have nothing to do with the notability of the topic.) If you believe the sources in the article are sufficient, say so. If you feel there are more sources out there, go get them. I do not feel the sources that there are sufficient and have not been able to find sources that I feel make the cut. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what databases, search terms, etc. did you use to screen for sources? Biosthmors (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With coverage in the NY Time, NY Daily News and Boston Globe amongst others, there is sufficient sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Coverage - There's some concern that the coverage identified to date is insufficient. Here is some more to consider from large mainstream press.
These certainly puts the amount of coverage into the realm of "multiple sources". -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well known product (at least in the United States) that passes WP:GNG requirements. Any perceived problems with the article can be fixed through editing. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:44, 5 December 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.