Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceramide-R

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceramide-R

Non-notable "molecular technology". Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regenium-xy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIVE PRO for Men. Delete. utcursch | talk 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Another marketing term for a conditioner L'Oreal created. Cosmetic chemists create new chemicals like this at least once a day, mainly because using a "new" chemical is a great marketing ploy. Just another nn conditioning ingredient. Conditionercruft? --Charlene 10:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• If intel came out with a new technology that could revolutionize computing, would we not write an article about it? L'Oreal has developed a new technology that could revolutionize haircare and skin care. Should we exclude the article because it could come off as an advert? That's ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallamRodya (talk • contribs)
  • It is not revolutionary. It is not a big deal. It's just another conditioning ingredient, one of thousands that do exactly - EXACTLY - the same thing as the stuff in the 98-cent-per-quart stuff you buy at WalMart. This is spam. --Charlene 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely delete. This thing is pure advert, and it is best for us to delete it. I mean, the article is even signed. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 10:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to CeramideL'Oreal, perhaps with a single-line merge to state that Ceramide-R is a trademarked kind of this gunk. Rinse, repeat. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On looking at the Ceramide article I think a redir there isn't the best thing. I like the use of this jollop for "acne scaring" (sic), by the way. "Boo! You've got spots", perhaps? Tonywalton  | Talk 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete treet Danny Lilithborne 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• With new advanced deleting action!! NawlinWiki 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The crappy science in modern beauty products and hair care items annoys the hell out of me, usually made up by marketing people with no knowledge of science whatsoever. At the end of the day it's nothing more than a sub-brand name. Ben W Bell talk 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - made up marketroiding - not real science. How many more of these are we going to get? --ArmadilloFromHell 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Shampoo is the new patent medicine, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to patent medicine maybe? I thought not. Robovski 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, delete per WP:SPAM. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete NN, spam, no independent refs --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete this looks like spam to me too Yuckfoo 20:30, 13 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.