RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Dynamiclear

Dynamiclear | Result: Keep

Dynamiclear (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Keep

1. It's a pretty good article. From the article, this company/product actually seems to be one of the better ones in the industry, which is cool to see. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarmotHead / talk / contribs}
2. Appears to be an attempted whitewash. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Well-written and on-mission. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The neural network broke the phase space!? REVERSE THE TANGENT GRAPH!!!} 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Everything said by those above. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. +π. Being more butthurt than I am about the nuclear or GMO articles doesn't warrant a delete. Rationalwiki is here to challenge you, deal with it, and/or discuss changes (with refs) on the talk page.--dx (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
6. I too am butthurt by a number of articles. This, at least, is rich in information and explanation, which is likely the only reason why it's here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Ha. No - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
8. I'm marking this discussion closed. The consensus seems solid here and I know of no other criteria. The delete template appears to have been used here as a kind of way to insert information into the article that it contained "False and Unreliable Information". I have taken a brief look at the studies, and in the abstract you are comparing two topical creams. according to http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/guide/genital-herpes-treatment-options "Formulas applied to the surface of the skin provide little benefit, and doctors don't usually recommend them." You are free to elaborate your case and I am open to the possibility Dynamiclear holds true benefits for sufferers of if not herpes some kind of skin condition. But to my inexpert eyes there is a major problem with your study. You are comparing your unproven medicine not against nothing but against another topical cream. a brief search does show that Aciclovir(the other cream), is effective against herpes but evidence is weak for use as a cream(it is available in pill form). One study posted on two different websites without a control group is not all that convincing to me. I really hope I'm not being some kind of pissed off idiot here, let me know it this doesn't make sense outside the confines of my own skull. --NonPerson (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Article has been up for deletion for over a year, is this going to occur any time soon? Dynamiclear^Talk 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Please note that we intentionally posted with our company account so there is transparency.
   • Dynamiclear is not a woo product, it has been peer reviewed and published: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270204 and http://jddonline.com/articles/dermatology/S1545961612P0209X/1 --Dynamiclear^Talk 03:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

The delete tag was changed to "update" in early 2013, and the article stood that way until today, when User:Dynamiclear changed it back to "delete." It seems inaccurate to say the "article has been up for deletion for over a year". Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. Would like the article to be considered again for deletion. --Dynamiclear^Talk 03:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. You have tagged it according to the way things are now done, and discussion is proceeding. I have no strong feelings one way or another about it, hence our conversation here under the "Goat" rubric. The talk page of the article itself is a good place to lay out the specifics of the "false and unreliable information" that need to be addressed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)