Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benefiber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. - brenneman {L} 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benefiber

Delete as advertisement. Prod removed by author without comment. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be an ad.--Jersey Devil 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete --Brad101 03:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete NN/vanity/ad/spam -- Alias Flood 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad, but without prejudice to rewriting, as this is a fairly notable product. I'm sure a decent article could be written about it, but this isn't it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I find a few references to this in Middle Eastern newspapers - given the language exchange level considerations and such, I would recommend people give this serious consideration before voting. I'm going to decline to vote because I'm not sure how reliable these sources are ... see for example this: [1] WilyD 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am in no way advertising for a fiber thing. I saw it on tv, looked for an article on wikipedia to see what it was, but then there wasn't so I looked on www.benefiber.com to see what it was and wrote a wikipedia article. You guys are so mean. I'm a teenager, why would I advertise for some sort of fiber thing? Did you read the article? It has nothing advertising, and if it does, please just tell me to remove the words. I was just trying to be helpful by making an article on something you don't have, even if it is a stub. Look, it's real, http://www.ask.com/web?q=benefiber&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir thats a web search on it.
    • It just looks like spam, which dozens of articles worth of show up every day. It's an easy assumption to make, because spam articles rarely say SPAM across the top. WilyD 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Um, it's Benefiber. It's advertised nationally. It's distributed by a major company. If you have a problem with the article contents, edit it, put up a cleanup tag, do whatever, but delete Benefiber? GassyGuy 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, criteria of advertisement for the afd nom has not been met. The article in no way reads like an advertisement. And I agree with gassyguy on pointing out product notability. -- Whpq 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete -Fails WP:CORP - stores are full of products like this one. An article could be written on the general topic of fibre and the pros and cons of buying commercial products versus eating correctly. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a place to look up products you see advertised on T.V. Google is for that. KarenAnn 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - if you feel the criteria for advertisement has not been meet, then check out the article's footnotes. KarenAnn 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Check out the page history. Unless you think WilyD is the one advertising it, then I believe those were an established user's good faith attempts to flesh out the stub which, when put to AfD, had no footnotes or mentions of Oman. GassyGuy 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment allow me to assure everyone I'm not hauking it, I'm merely an astronomer and a game store owner, I ain't sell the stuff. I'm somewhat concerned that we're deleting an foreign product because there are few english references, and it's hard to find references for places where they use very different alphabets. I was just trying to give it a chance to get past WP:V, the supreme arbitor. WilyD 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The product is advertised on US national television, you can buy it at CVS, RiteAid, Grocery Store etc. It is in no way some sort of foreign thing. --Yshoulduknow 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would still make it foreign, but I guess would indicate a strangeness I can't find American references, only Arabian ones. WilyD 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well then you haven't looked. www.benefiber.com and an ask.com search: http://www.ask.com/web?q=benefiber&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir Yshoulduknow 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I prefer to use reasonably reputable sources, which is why I went for newspapers. It's just some foreign fibre suppliment. I'm not too concerned about it. Just didn't want to delete an Arabian proeduct because I don't speak Arabic. Mais, c'est la vie. WilyD 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, a noteworthy product, In the USA it's hawked by Paul Harvey several times a week on the radio. Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hestitant Delete as per KarenAnn. I've heard of this product but this could products notability could likly be covered elsewhere until it expands and warrents its own article.–(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable product as mentioned above, Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very well-known product, I see ads for it all the time on TV. I honestly can't figure out why this article was marked as spam/advertising...it's only a few sentences long and those sentences simply state what Benefiber is, it doesn't look like the typical spam article at all. Amazinglarry 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up - I see advertisements for this product on TV constantly!! It has several radio ads to boot and is available for purchase through thousands of retailers. It should and can be expanded. Srose (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep We have time, this article looks as if it can improve. As far as I see this article has asserted it's importance. Lets see what wikipedia editors can do! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This WIkipedia editor just improved the article by deleting a spam link from it... is that what you had in mind? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing a users "vote" from Speedy Delete to Keep is EXTREAMLY poor form! Especially when the change is by the article's author! [2] Reverted the page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops sorry, I thought she was saying the people saying speedy delete failed. I was trying to make it easier, because if it were as I beleived, it would mean keep. Geez, sorry. There goes my chance at wikipedia, you'll probably ban me and stuff...
  • Comment: It is definitely poor form, but you should not let it persuade your vote. The content of the article and the actions of its creator are completely separate things. Czj 06:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, no evidence presented that the product is important. It's nothing special, it's just guar gum with an spiffy name. I suppose a redirect to Guar gum, which already says everything that needs to be said about Benefiber, might be reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no prej. Ste4k 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a product advertised on American television. Ryūlóng 06:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable product, not an ad. Czj 06:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy... clean-up. Clearly an ad in its original form, if it can be cleaned up and the advert-talk removed, there's no reason it shouldn't be kept. Notable product.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Delete. I am fully convinced by Dpbsmith's argument below. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What is notable about it? What can be said about Benefiber that can't be said about Guar gum? Novartis is a notable company, which is why we have an article about it, but this Novartis product is not notable. It would be like having an article about Hess gasoline. We need an article about Amerada Hess, but we don't need an article about Hess gasoline (or Exxon gasoline or Citgo gasoline) because they're all just Gasoline. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right; I misspoke. I did mean that the company offering the product is at at least somewhat notable. Thank you for the correction.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: 1. Guar Gum is not advertised on TV 2. Benefiber is available in a pill, chewable tablet, and powder. 3. Guar Gum in its natural form cannot be used in food or drinks. Yshoulduknow 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Cannot be used in food or drinks? Nonsense. Guar gum is a common ingredient in processed food. Sometimes I believe it's just called "vegetable gum." Just a second. Let me take a look in my refrigerator. How about cottage cheese? That seems like the sort of thing that might use it. Cabot Vermont Style Cottage Cheese. Ingredients: Cultured, pasteurized skim milk, milk, cream, salt, grade whey, nonfat milk, modified corn starch, natural flavors, potassium sorbate (to preserve freshness), guar gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum, citric acid, lactic acid, polysorbate 80, enzymes. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it's not advertising then you better follow WP:V. Massmato 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, I do not understand how it is advertising. Have you looked at its current state? Also, I have very good sources and references listed such as the product's official website, and the manufacturer's official website. Yshoulduknow 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Unless the person voting keep and clean up does it right now. Capit 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete My original keep sentiment was expressed because I was quite sure that Benefiber could be expanded into a decent article. Looking at it again in its current form, it looks like I was incorrect. I'm surprised that there's so little available out there, but such seems to be the case. Perhaps redirect the page to Novartis. GassyGuy 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm all for expanding it, but please tell me what I should add. I have reworked the page, re organized it, I've done everything. If it is deleted, I will simply re post the article as it is in it's current form, which is not advertising. Yshoulduknow 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A deleted page shouldn't be recreated without reason. If you really want to fix up the page, Yshoulduknow, I recommend looking at the article for Bayer for comparison. You can use that as a basis for expanding the article, if possible. Make sense? Happy editing. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you vote Keep if I did that? I would just need help with pictures, I don't know how to put them there with the source and everything. Yshoulduknow 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I already voted for keep, but maybe some of the folks above would vote keep if it was fixed up. As Mattisee says below, though, it's not about the lack of pictures, it's about turning it into a strong article, with good, verifyable links, and information that would be found in an encyclopedia. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless Yshoulduknow gets busy right now and cleans it up -- and the problem is not pictures. It's following WP:V. Better have a look. Mattisse 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Citrucel is a redirect to Methylcellulose, as it should be. Metamucil is a substub. No evidence has been presented that any these products have any particular importance above and beyond being fiber supplements. Metamucil, Citrucel, Benefiber are not cultural icons. They are not famous in this history of advertising. They do not figure in novels. They are not the topic of song lyrics. They have not made mainstream news. They are all particular brands of generic fiber supplements. None of them is signficantly different in health effects from any other. There is nothing much to be said about any of them except to echo dubious marketing claims that one particular kind of fiber has a somewhat different texture, flavor, and spectrum of GI side-effects from another. I.e. one particular person may find that one product gives them more gas than another, or may prefer the slimy texture of one or the gritty texture of another. There is nothing substantial for these articles to be about except to echo commercial promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per very clear explanation above by Dpbsmith for those who have not looked at Wikipedia policies pertaining to this issue cited in entries supporting deletion. Listerin 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Coredesat. The only references on the article right now, are advertising sites. If it could be shown that there is literature about Benefiber in other mainstream non-medical publications, that would make it more notable, but otherwise, I think that this is best as a sub-paragraph in some other article. --Elonka 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Someone should also look at Metamucil and decide if that should go, too. --Cheesehead 1980 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:08, 28 July 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.