Talk:Proactiv Solution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proactiv Solution article.
Article policies
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] I still move to remove this

Unless there is some chemical formula, or something that shows that it has some educational value, or something atleast, it should be removed. It has nothing for us to learn from, just some random prices and who is hired by the company to speak on their "life story" of how it worked. This would be a great article if it was a review, but this is wikipedia, not a avertising company. 72.143.36.130 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. I saw an info-mercial for this product come on while i was writing a paper and thought, would this actually make it onto wikipedia? Yes apparently. I realise this site can be better than conventional encyclopedias in that it can provide much more in depth information and cover a wider range of topics. Surely though, this must be weighed against the publication of content which really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I use this site almost daily, but many scoff at this and at wikipedia in general, articles like this detract from the acceptance of this site as a credible source of 'information.' If wikipedia is to be respected as an esteemed source of useful knowledge, this type of article has to go. I completely support your motion to remove this and hope to god you succeed, you are absolutely right it contains no educational value whatsoever. It is very late in australia, i'm tired please excuse grammar/spelling. 124.182.134.75 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

POV sounds like a disgruntled customer. Specific sections need cleaning up to adhear to NPOV. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effective?

Does it work? 71.125.244.183 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not check out the Street Cents weblink, which contains information on a test carried out by (or on) five spotty teenagers. Maikel 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Street Cents--Anchoress 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

Why is there a person writing about how he/she is using the proactiv....Some people really dont care.

The person's experience about the use of Proactiv really doesn't seem relevent. It lacks the formal tone, and will you find this in an encyclopedia? For all we know he may be lying; the information is invarifiable. I think we have enough reasons to pull the plug on that section. Wakka092
Absolutely! Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
@Wakka092: please sign using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2
I was hoping somebody would reformat it into a more wiki-like style. And if you want verification then ask. And while *you* may not care about a specific case story...other's may. I'd have loved to have input like I wrote before making the purchase of which incidentally I've been continually using the prodect with minor and some odd results. And please note that I was putting my case study at the *end* so that people could read the other stuff first. You may want to check the validity of what's on the reverted (current) version of the page which reads a lot like the Proactiv advertisement. Zephalis 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it may read like a Proactiv advertisement, but it wasn't derived or written from a Proactiv advertisement. How could we fix this? And to end this dispute, the ingredients of the Proactiv Solution steps are bonafide facts. Why not try a blog? We could link to it from this wiki if you set up one. Wakka092 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda new to all of this...how do I set up a blog? and again...I've stopped using the stuff because it was actually enhancing my whiteheads...although the cleanser is kind of nice after working on a car and the skin lightening lotion did wonders for the bags under my eyes. I'm actually lost as to what all the different wiki's are...i just dont' have the time to research it all. Zephalis 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, this article was written by someone hired to promote the product, right? (from 24.42.85.58)
Yes, indeed. I live in a big house and feast on swan's eggs. Thank you, Guthy-Renker and you idealistic fools at Wikipedia! Maikel 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia = Encyclopedia

Is this article really important enough to be placed on an encyclopedia? don't you realize it's really making an advertisement for this kind of product? This company has enough money to make advertisments somewhere else, not on an encyclopedia... and if any one wants to know more about this product, just go to it's web site, I suggest deletion.Puerto.rico 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The entry can be edited to be less of an advertisement and more of an encyclopedic entry. Adding references and changing the tone can be helpful. I've tried editing the entry to be more encyclopedic. I think it's a worthwhile entry just because of the exposure it's getting on North American TV, that's why I looked it up in the first place. WLU 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, this article contains exactly one source that can be regarded as reliable and independent of the manufacturer, and that seems to indicate that it is not a notable product. The criticism section seems reasonable, but absent sources it is original research. The remaining sources are official websites, ads and so on.
As for notability/encyclopedic topic, Benzoil peroxide based acne treatments are as common as, well, acne, and the cleanser doesn't look particularly remarkable or unusual. I just don't see the topic as encyclopedic, and I suspect it is unverifiable. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for this article. We don't need an article that reads like an advertisement, and even if it didn't, why does Wikipedia need an article on a commercial product with no cultural significance? Besides that, grammatically it's a terrible article. Causative ingredients? Can someone explain to me what that's supposed to mean? Caustic, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.1.209 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I seems as if it should be in WP just because of its popularity, even if it's only known to most as something they see on TV late at night. It is a well known product, and there are many WP pages for well known products. Personally, I came here because I was wondering what the scam was about.

[edit] Talking about prices and alternatives

I do not think its relevant to mention that there are other products that are available at different prices. Many products have substitutes that can be cheaper or more expensive. This is not all that special to note.

Similar products being listed does not seem bad though. Chapium 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't Work

I've used this and have come to the conclusion that it does not work. It merely suprises the pimples, but does not completely get rid of them. If you go a day or two without using proactive the pimples will come back. I assume that it works like an antibiotic - killing the bacteria underneath the skin. However, you need to use proactive consistantly to kill all of the bacteria and prevent a resurgence of the pimple. This is unlike other acne treatments like Oxy that simply dries the pimple out. It's a harsh method, but it is much more effective that Proactive. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by REscano (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, Proactiv does have to depend on people. I've recently got too lazy in the morning to use Proactiv, so I haven't used it for 2 weeks. But so far, i haven't got any pimples. Serpentine17ice 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
True, i used it for like 1 month and this stuff DOESNT work.

Man, I have been using Proactiv for almost 2 years and it STILL hasn't done anything. I've been using it on my neck, which is where most of my zits are, and I have more on my neck than before I started using it on my neck. It ain't worth the money; this product frickin' blows! C4pt4in W1k1

[edit] Seem like an advert

Does not seem to give information about skin care outside of production promotion. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed the portion of the article that is written like an advertisement until someone can write a new description of the steps. K Watson1984 02:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, even with your removals. Anchoress 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed something

Proactiv is only sold through infomercials and online. You cannot purchase it at a mall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.45.169.97 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Proactiv is sold in malls. It's probably not sold at the mall you go to. It's true that Proactiv isn't sold at some malls, but there are malls that sell it, like the Ridgmar Mall in Fort Worth, Texas. C4pt4in W1k1

[edit] It doesn't work

Period. End of story.--MP123 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

QFT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.67 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn right it don't work. C4pt4in W1k1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive/inappropriate links tag in external links section

I'm removing this tag because there's nothing on the talkpage about it and the section doesn't seem excessive or inappropriate to me. I don't have an investment in keeping the tag off, but if someone thinks it should be restored, could that editor please note the version they are tagging and their reasons on the talkpage? Thanks. PS this is the version of the article I'm removing the tag from: [1] Anchoress (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Want The Actress

I don't want a link to some face cleaner that doesn't work, why doesn't this direct to Kathy Fields, the actress in Johnny Got His Gun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGibsonSG (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links.

Why are there 2 of the same link in references?

And to all those who feel this article should not be here...

Proactiv solution is part of history whether you like it or not.

It should be here purely for the fact that the product exists, and is widely known.

Tha article does need cleaning up, but it definately should be here.

Troobador (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)