Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIVE PRO for Men

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 Speedily deleted as {{db-spam}} for a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VIVE PRO for Men

VIVE PRO for Men (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unencyclopedic material - do shampoos deserve their own Wikipedia article? Please also see related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regenium-xy. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia were to become a new battleground for brand placement, i would be against that. But this is not an example of that. I was surprised in fact, when i ran a search for this article and none existed. I believe wikipedia is place for interests to be explored, whatever the interest may be. Maybe shampoo isn't your thing, but you're not everybody. --CallamRodya 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not Encarta. If I can find articles on every video game system ever produced, each game that was produced for those systems, articles on virtually every cellphone manufactured in history, by manufacturer, etc, etc, then who are you to tell me that brands, whatever they may be, do not have a place on wikipedia? --CallamRodya 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. See the discussion of Regenium-xy above. -- RHaworth 07:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. When I first saw the article, I was convinced this should have been a db-g11 or a copyright infringement, it looks like direct marketing copy and I was trying to fing the original web source. I do believe the poster is not an agent, and created it in good faith, but he should understand that his statement This is wikipedia, ... I say anything goes is a very bad point of view to hold -- there are lots of rules and guidelines to abide by. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been a wikipedia browser for years and have only recently become a user as I feel certain areas of content are lacking. I believe wikipedia to be a one-stop source for any information. The fact this article is being disputed astounds me. This is 2006, and this is a community encylopedia. Sure, I could open up a 20+ year-old copy of Britannica and read all about hummingbirds and Einstein's theory of relativity, or I could log onto wikipedia and read all about...ANYTHING I WANT! the sky's the limit! don't ruin wikipedia by traditionalising it. --CallamRodya 08:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not everything can be put into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and not a "one-stop source for any information". Though I agree that Wikipedia is not a "traditional" encyclopedia, I still don't think individual shampoo brands should have their own Wikipedia article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 08:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I partially agree. Not every shampoo brand should have an article. But one that is technologically advanced and could contribute to the ease of social stigma surrounding a major male health concern, in my opinion, does deserve an article on wikipedia. Think about it: a shampoo that actually could prevent and even reverse hair loss in men! Rogaine has an article. Why shouldn't VIVE PRO for Men and Regenium-xy have articles too? --CallamRodya 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. This is nothing more than a very thick conditioner that coats the individual hairs, making them seem thicker. That's how ALL conditioners and conditioning shampoos work - this is no different than any other conditioner. Well, except the fact that they're marketing it to men, and the price. --Charlene 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well of course you are more than welcome to amend the article to include that information. Afterall, wikipedia is a community encyclopedia.--CallamRodya 09:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's better that this utterly non-notable conditioner, which probably comes off the same production line as 150 other conditioners that are identical except for fragranceand price, not have an article. Either that or start typing in hundreds and hundreds of articles on every conditioner sold in the world. --Charlene 09:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Apparently you don't read the ingredients list on the side of that container. Believe me, most haircare, and all beauty products for that matter, are worlds appart. You are far too cynical to make an informed oppinion.--CallamRodya 10:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN, spam --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete lovely spam wonderful spam Danny Lilithborne 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I am in no away affiliated with L'Oreal and its brands. This article is not spam and was created for informative purposes only.--CallamRodya 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think deletion is extreme. As a community, we should be discussing how these articles could be reworked to satisfy some users' calls for "legitimacy". I do feel these articles have a place on wikipedia and still do not see what all the fuss is about.--CallamRodya 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For reasons mentioned above and in previous AfD nom. Spinach Dip 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceramide-R. utcursch | talk 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The writer is making the same mistake that most self-promoting bands do: seeing the wiki as a place to raise awareness about something new. Wiki is about teaching about stuff that's already been accepted as amazing. --humblefool® 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Lather, rinse, delete as spam. NawlinWiki 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, spam, non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, obvious spam, not encyclopedic style. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, spam. --- RockMFR 17:04, 10 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.