Talk:Proactiv Solution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proactiv Solution article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Effective? 3 Relevance 4 Wikipedia = Encyclopedia 5 Talking about prices and alternatives 6 Doesn't Work

[edit] NPOV

POV sounds like a disgruntled customer. Specific sections need cleaning up to adhear to NPOV. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effective?

Does it work? 71.125.244.183 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not check out the Street Cents weblink, which contains information on a test carried out by (or on) five spotty teenagers. Maikel 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Street Cents--Anchoress 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

Why is there a person writing about how he/she is using the proactiv....Some people really dont care.

The person's experience about the use of Proactiv really doesn't seem relevent. It lacks the formal tone, and will you find this in an encyclopedia? For all we know he may be lying; the information is invarifiable. I think we have enough reasons to pull the plug on that section. Wakka092

Absolutely! Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

@Wakka092: please sign using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2

I was hoping somebody would reformat it into a more wiki-like style. And if you want verification then ask. And while *you* may not care about a specific case story...other's may. I'd have loved to have input like I wrote before making the purchase of which incidentally I've been continually using the prodect with minor and some odd results. And please note that I was putting my case study at the *end* so that people could read the other stuff first. You may want to check the validity of what's on the reverted (current) version of the page which reads a lot like the Proactiv advertisement. Zephalis 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may read like a Proactiv advertisement, but it wasn't derived or written from a Proactiv advertisement. How could we fix this? And to end this dispute, the ingredients of the Proactiv Solution steps are bonafide facts. Why not try a blog? We could link to it from this wiki if you set up one. Wakka092 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda new to all of this...how do I set up a blog? and again...I've stopped using the stuff because it was actually enhancing my whiteheads...although the cleanser is kind of nice after working on a car and the skin lightening lotion did wonders for the bags under my eyes. I'm actually lost as to what all the different wiki's are...i just dont' have the time to research it all. Zephalis 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, this article was written by someone hired to promote the product, right? (from 24.42.85.58)

Yes, indeed. I live in a big house and feast on swan's eggs. Thank you, Guthy-Renker and you idealistic fools at Wikipedia! Maikel 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia = Encyclopedia

Is this article really important enough to be placed on an encyclopedia? don't you realize it's really making an advertisement for this kind of product? This company has enough money to make advertisments somewhere else, not on an encyclopedia... and if any one wants to know more about this product, just go to it's web site, I suggest deletion.Puerto.rico 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The entry can be edited to be less of an advertisement and more of an encyclopedic entry. Adding references and changing the tone can be helpful. I've tried editing the entry to be more encyclopedic. I think it's a worthwhile entry just because of the exposure it's getting on North American TV, that's why I looked it up in the first place. WLU 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, this article contains exactly one source that can be regarded as reliable and independent of the manufacturer, and that seems to indicate that it is not a notable product. The criticism section seems reasonable, but absent sources it is original research. The remaining sources are official websites, ads and so on.

As for notability/encyclopedic topic, Benzoil peroxide based acne treatments are as common as, well, acne, and the cleanser doesn't look particularly remarkable or unusual. I just don't see the topic as encyclopedic, and I suspect it is unverifiable. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking about prices and alternatives

I do not think its relevant to mention that there are other products that are available at different prices. Many products have substitutes that can be cheaper or more expensive. This is not all that special to note.

Similar products being listed does not seem bad though. Chapium 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't Work

I've used this and have come to the conclusion that it does not work. It merely suprises the pimples, but does not completely get rid of them. If you go a day or two without using proactive the pimples will come back. I assume that it works like an antibiotic - killing the bacteria underneath the skin. However, you need to use proactive consistantly to kill all of the bacteria and prevent a resurgence of the pimple. This is unlike other acne treatments like Oxy that simply dries the pimple out. It's a harsh method, but it is much more effective that Proactive. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by REscano (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC).