Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levulan

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Levulan

Not notable. Please examine previous version as well. Delete. brenneman^(t)(c) 05:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why marked for deletion? I wrote the article from scratch.

This is not advertising. I recently underwent Levulan Therapy and there is almost no information about it available on the web. The treatment is brand new and very effective at treating both acne and scars. As a longstanding acne sufferer, I can promise you that people will be happy to learn about this procedure. I wrote a long article about my experience at [[1]] and posted the beginning of the article on wikipedia. I am willing to post entire article and remove link, if that is causing the deletion.

• Delete advertising. --TM ^(talk) 05:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup. It seems to be a notable treatment. -- Kjkolb 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. Karl Stas 08:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Not notable.--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it gets 122,000 Google results, which appear relevant, so I assumed it must be notable. Maybe not. We do have an article for Retin-A. -- Kjkolb 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - [2] seems pretty real to me. Perhaps it should be moved to Levulan Photodynamic Therapy and a redirect placed here. ESkog 23:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This needs serious rewriting but is real enough. (At least the prescription information for the physician is decidedly non-crackpot. Pilatus 12:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This article was created by an agressive spammer. He's reverted the page back to an addvertisement, complete with price. He's created another article for the same product, as well as linking them to Acne several times. Interestingly, the current Levulan article mentions that it's illegal to market it as an acne treatment which is probably why it's being advertised here. Kill this with fire. Make a page for the parent company and make this one line inside it if we have to, but I still say kill it with fire.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ban the asshole. Is this Astroturfing or enthusiasm that the anon is rid of his acne? Pilatus 01:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Ban him if necessary. The article is now hopefully a decent stub. If this gets reverted again a ban is in order. As far as the "illegal marketing" goes, I presume the anonymous author refers to off-label use, which must not be advertised. Pilatus 01:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote the article, and it is not an advertisment. I'm not even selling the service! As for reverting the article, all I did is add more information. You have a 3 sentence stub that provides no useful information. I underwent Levulan Therapy, it made a huge difference for me, and I wrote a long article about it. All of the information may not be as cleanly written and edited as you like, but it is accurate and useful information. I suffered from Acne for 10 years and this helped with the problem, so I wanted to share the information. Here is the original article I wrote :www.wasauna.com/levulan.html - does this look like an advertisment to you? Maybe the link to the doctor who treated me seems like an advertisment, but it was on my personal story website, not on the wikipedia page. -Dave

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.