Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipozene

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 Keep; editors may merge and redirect as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lipozene

Lipozene (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I am uncertain if this product is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, or is this entry serving more as an advertisment. Avi (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, I don't think reading like an ad is a problem for this article as it mentions (and references) that the supplement has mixed results. Seems interesting enough as an example of a drug fined by the FDA for false advertising - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A quick googling shows links that fail wp:rs, plus scam complaints and links to such. Not sure how this meets wp:v with wp:rs if only blogs and google ad farms are talking about it. FDA fine is a singular event that might itself be worth adding in an article about FDA fines, but not notable outside of being a fraud. I can just see in two months how the negative stuff will disappear and it will become full boat spam then. Pharmboy (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, This article is useful and informative. I say keep it as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulbreez97 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I found the article useful and merging it with Glucomannan would not have done me much good as I did not know of the association, nor would I have thought to look for information on lipozene in an article on FDA fines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernmic (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
comment. Being useful and interesting are precisely why the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay was written, and are considered NON-arguments for an AFD discussion. Pharmboy (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
comment - The Lipozene would redirect to Glucomannan, so it wouldn't be a matter of "looking for it". Torc2 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Glucomannan, as was done with its sister product, propolene. No need for an article for each brand name of what's largely the same thing. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Glucomannan - Agree with Pburka, this is just a one brand of a common substance. Torc2 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (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.