Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proactiv Solution

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, and kudos to CallamRodya for the cleanup during this AfD.[1] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proactiv Solution

Proactiv Solution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Huge and probably unresolvable verifiability problems. The only reliable source cited notes that this product is unremarkable. An article exists on the active ingredient (benzoyl peroxide). In general, this article serves mostly as an ad for the product, and the small criticism section does little to address that. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. MER-C 01:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I think if anything, this article is counterpromotional as it is more critical than supportive. Major NPOV issues. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think this article is a good candidate for deletion as it is a very popular product and has a strong cultural significance, what with the use of so many celebrity spokespeople. However, this article is in dire need of a rewrite and multiple neutral sources, which I'm sure are available. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have looked for reliable sources, and the only one I can find says the product is unremarkable. Hoping sources exist isn't the same as finding them. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the product is reasonably verifiable, and the prevalence of ads for it make it pass the notability threshold. But it might be better to have a Guthy-Renker article for this to redirect to instead.. Mister.Manticore 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — Though it seems like an ad, it is actually a very popular product. Needs a good editor with a knowledge of the subject to introduce NPOV into it, and to help clean it up. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Endorsed by celebrities such as Judith Light, Vanessa Williams, Kelly Clarkson and Lindsay Lohan just to name a few. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Article could be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into benzoyl peroxide. I like Mister.Manticore's suggestion aswell.
  • Comment The Proactiv "system" contains more than benzoyl peroxide, so it would not be appropriate to merge it into benzoyl peroxide. It has three parts - the benzoyl peroxide solution, a salicylic acid solution, and a gentle cleanser. As I said below, you can get all three in larger containers than Proactiv's for about one-fourth the cost of Proactiv if you buy generic at a discount drug store. Its notability (pro or con) is in my opinion not because of its ingredients but because of its marketing. --Charlene 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Slap expert verify tag. And probably advert. ~ Feureau 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable product and can be NPOVised, and sources can be cited. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This product is overpriced and unremarkable in and of itself (you're basically paying $50 for the exact products you could buy at any discount drugstore in North America for $10), but the prevalence of the infomercial and the notability of those who have endorsed it make it notable IMO. Feureau is right; the article needs to be gone over by an expert. --Charlene 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep only after Cleanup. Reads too much like an ad; quesitonable under WP:COMPANY.SkierRMH 08:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It only reads so much like an advertisement. I would say delete had it been created by a spokesperson for the company, but it would appear not. Besides, I've heard of the product before numerous times and although I would never put any of the shite on my face, I think it is notable enough to stay. Black-Velvet 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very visable and popular product. Advert aspect of article means it needs to be cleaned, not the subject deleted. --Oakshade 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Majorly Overhaul the product is a popular one, the article in question basically reads like an advertisement. That's more of a content dispute rather than an AfD. So its worth keeping but it definitely could use a major overhaul.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nature of the article needs to be more scientifically-oriented and factually based. all references of cost compared to similar products should be removed as there are NPOV conflicts. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable product used and endorsed by numerous celebrities. May need cleanup, but that's a different matter. Wavy G 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that this company can get people to pay so much for so little deserves study and a nice Wikipedia article. Jessica Simpson's breathless endorsement on their never-ending infomercials ought to confer automatic notability. Alansohn 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Revision Completed The article has just undergone a major revision. Please review and comment. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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.