Talk:Cyclamate

Is there a RW angle for this? --Zipperback (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

None at all, especially as most of the aticle goes on about its successor products. Delete. Sophie^Wilder 11:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation there's a reasonable doubt that Cyclamate is not that bad, and the FDA banned it unjustly so there's a potential low level skepticism angle, but none of that is reflected in this article. As is it can be lost.--Zipperback (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

if it's not that bad, could it be the the entire wording is meant to be sarcastic? Sophie^Wilder 19:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. The whole safety issue of Cyclamate is sort of debatable. It's banned in the USA, but other countries (with reasonably high food and drug regulation standards) still allow it. There's no indicator if it's correct, incorrect or incorrect... but being ironic.--Zipperback (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

if we can't even tell that (although, given the original user's record, I can guess) then the article is worse than useless. Sophie^Wilder 21:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Kill it then. Ty^JFBAA 22:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll save you, Cyclamate!

Since the lack of a skeptical angle is what's put this article on the chopping block, I guess I'd better step up to rescue it. Fear not, little missy! --Tracer (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I take the "An editor wants this article to be deleted" notice off the main page now? Or is this article still in jeopardy? --Tracer (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sophie^Wilder 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yay! --Tracer (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)