- 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 Speedily deleted as {{db-spam}} for a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about shampoos aren't encyclopedic. Do we need an article on this? –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the related AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIVE PRO for Men as well. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that any technological advancement, including cosmetic ones, deserves an article. This is one in particular that got my attention because, like most men, I am interested in any product that can prevent hairloss. Not encyclopedic? Well how about this: as soon as I find the chemical makeup complete with diagrams and notation on Regenium-xy, I will add them to the article. Will that satisfy your encyclopedic-uncertainty? --CallamRodya 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning to delete. I'm curious as to whether these might pass WP:CORP -- some products are notable, such as the Ford Focus or Commodore 64, but not all topics are inherently notable. Has this shampoo received any significant media or third-party attention? Luna Santin 07:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the article. 100 million American men who are terrified of loosing their hair are going to want to know about this shampoo. A new cancer treatment would surely get an article on wikipedia. why shouldn't a new hair loss treatment get the same attention? --CallamRodya 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Frankly, I will believe CallamRodya's claim to have no connection with L'Oreal when he has a few more edits to his credit on other subjects. Reads like pure spam to me. If kept, needs to be merged with VIVE PRO for Men. -- RHaworth 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per previous - when the first two articles look like spam and smell like spam, it's not a good start. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a wikipedia browser for years and have only recently become a user as I feel certain areas of content are lacking. I believe wikipedia to be a one-stop source for any information. The fact this article is being disputed astounds me. This is 2006, and this is a community encylopedia. Sure, I could open up a 20+ year-old copy of Britannica and read all about hummingbirds and Einstein's theory of relativity, or I could log onto wikipedia and read all about...ANYTHING I WANT! the sky's the limit! don't ruin wikipedia by traditionalising it. --CallamRodya 08:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see reply on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VIVE_PRO_for_Men. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete NN, spam --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Spamality. Danny Lilithborne 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I am in no away affiliated with L'Oreal and its brands. This article is not spam and was created for informative purposes only.--CallamRodya 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it looks like spam, smells like spam, and tastes like spam, then guess what ...? --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to request that Steve (Slf67) no longer take part in this discussion unless he is willing to be constructive.
- Delete. Looks like an add to me. Spinach Dip 09:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceramide-R. utcursch | talk 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, now with extra body. NawlinWiki 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, spam containing obviously unreliable mystifications. If this gunk truly is patented, its formula is a matter of public record somewhere, so the article's claiming its contents are "mysterious" is patently false. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:44, 10 November 2006 (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.