Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocodile oil (2nd nomination)

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 per reliable references, particularly Phlegm Rooster's.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile oil[edit]

This page has been deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocodile oil) and was once again recreated by a SPA spammer User:rhysc whose ~~account has recently been closed~~ userpage has been deleted for "blatant advertising" almost-instinct 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's worth noting that the previous deletion was two years ago; looking at the first debate from 2006, the nomination noted that there were "only about 250 hits on Google"; two years later, googling the phrase "crocodile oil" now returns 2,400 hits. Thus, there is room for this stub to become an article that can be sourced. The fact that a "witch" created the stub this time makes no difference under the circumstances. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to reply here? All these hits on Google are solely thanks to the spamming activities of the creators and vendors of Repcillin, a topical balm that contains crocodile oil. See the talk page for Crocodile oil to see extracts from an online interview with the creators of Repcillin. There are no other references for Crocodile oil. Everywhere you go you see outlandish claims being made for it; it has no scientific backing at all almost-instinct 13:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you start to refine the Google search to exclude blogs, promotional videos, official company sites, sites which that want you to pay by PayPal etc, you can get it down to 465 or lower. I'm not saying it is definitely non-notable. But its Google hits are somewhat deceptive.

That said, I have found one independent source dealing with the topic in greater depth: Can croc oil take bite out of skin ailments?. --Salvador Barley (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to sound hectoring, but this article just repeats the unsubstantiated claims made by the creator of Repcillin almost-instinct 13:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does include a sceptical response from a Johannesburg dermatologist. But I'm not suggesting it be used to source scientific statements – it seems more suitable for info about its marketing if anything. And it's only one source; if no others turn up, I'm inclined towards deletion. --Salvador Barley (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only "sources" are scientifically unfounded and are largely the responsibility of the article's author. What a croc (someone had to say it). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it's a croc is the very reason that there should be an article. Once a remedy of dubious effectiveness becomes notable enough that people believe it works, the function of a Wikipedia article is to provide criticism of the subject as part of information. I'd put it in the same category as the skeptical articles we have about detoxification foot pads, emu oil, copper healing bracelets, laetrile and other such things. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but what sources would we cite? If I created an unsourced stub which said "Crocodile oil is an alleged ingredient in one or two products sold by BS-merchants who claim that it has the power to cure diseases that medical science currently has no answer to" surely I would expect it to be speedy-deleted immediately? almost-instinct 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree in principle with Mandsford, with the problem being that articles like this also become magnets for "supporters" to use as a WP:COATRACK. That alone is not a reason to delete the article, but it is something to be cautious about.

Delete - Not having a verifiable, third party source is reason to delete. I could live if it were merged with snake oil, but without sources, it really has no place here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see the problem that comes with trying to find sources-- surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding anything specific, although it's apparently "in vogue" right now with people who look for non-pharmaceutical "natural" remedies that can't be regulated by the FDA. I can't find where an independent evaluation has been made of the claims, nor a Consumer Reports type commentary about the product. I ask the question, why would someone go to Wikipedia to look up "crocodile oil" in the first place, rather than a health supplement website? Because on Wikipedia, they would be more likely to see the negative reviews and not just the "it-worked-for-me" claims. That's why I think an article should exist, but again, I see the dilemma that you've referred to. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - well known product in everyday use in Australia. The subject of a well known nationwide advertising campaign and is in heavy use. Myrrideon (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile oil is not a product, it is an alleged ingredient in a product whose vendors make endless unsubstaniated claims (curing babies of eczema, curing psoriasis, healing acid burns etc). If the product you are referring to is such a success then presumably some Australian media outlet has published something about its miracle ingredient? One this page could cite? almost-instinct 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep We are not debating whether the stuff works. We are not the Science Police. If reliable and independent sources say it works, that its a hoax, or simply that lots of people buy it, that would be sufficient to satisfy notability. The source cited above, Can croc oil take bite out of skin ailments? , might qualify as a reliable source (I'm not familiar with the source myself) and it in turn says that Reuters earlier had coverage of it, which (if the Reuters article could be found) would be 2 reliable and independent sources, sort of the bare bones of WP:N. If reliable sources print stories which repeat propaganda from the promoters of a hoax, that is a shame and makes one reconsider how reliable they really are, but we are not the judges of truth here, just the judges of whether independent and reliable sources exist for writing an article. If an article is kept, it should not be allowed to be a promotion POV advertisement. See HeadOn for an example of a balanced article about a homeopathic remedy. Edison (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Edison, we are not the Science police, and per a little research. [1] are a couple of news articles mentioning it, but better are the 73 google book hits. (34 limited view, 23 full view) including this, which indicates this kind of snake oil goes back to Ctesias, and others with more extensive coverage.John Z (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are not the science police but at the moment there is no science. The only title cited is a 19th German chemist's work on how fats can be used, eg in paints. The page, with this citation was creator by the importer—not even the creator—of a moisturiser containing crocodile oil. WP:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Soon after the article was created someone added a "COI" tag, which this importer immediately removed, which indicates bad faith on his part and makes me doubt that this book contains anything to do with crocodile oil's medicinal properties. In any case if you look through the talk page you'll see that the creator of the moisturiser—a man who had zero previous experience in medicine at all—said in one interview "Although I have not commissioned any empirical tests, I’m not making any claims ... it’s a topical balm that you can put on anything". The online sources, such as the one above, just repeat Repcillin's Creation myths. I agree—if as an ingredient in moistures it passes notability requirements—that there should be an entry on crocodile oil, but until we have a "reliable, published source", ie one that isn't just a credulous journalist repeating unsubstantiated claims, this article, by WP rules, shouldn't exist. almost-instinct 07:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books results linked above show clear notability. This needs expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one Wikipedian were to go to one of these books, read what it had to say, cite it and base the article around that citation, yes I would agree. But since the page was created by an editor who has been shown to have been acting in bad faith—and am I the only person to have noted that the one book alleged referenced is the first result in the Google Books list?—all we have at the moment is the scar tissue of deleted rubbish. By having this page, useless and meaningless, we do WP a disservice; whether or not someone who actually knows about this subject subsequently wants to do WP the service of creating a meaningful article is irrelevant to our task in hand almost-instinct 09:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS May I apologise for how pompous I just sounded!? :-) almost-instinct 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not. We need more polite, pompous wikipedians. ;). I'd do it if I had the time. The refs are a bit less than meets the eye, but still sufficient. They would do a good job of science policing by themselves, by the way. One learns that it was thought to be highly efficacious for the lucky owner to burn in a lamp, to quiet the damnable incessant croaking of frogs, and allow one to sleep (they'd be scared by the smell.) It would also make your he-goat invincible in head-butting contests, if applied directly to the forehead. Kind of hard to seriously make modern quack claims for it next to recommendations like that.John Z (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable. It's irrelevant whether or not it's snake oil; all that matters is whether it has received sufficient attention, and I think it has. Everyking (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very stubby, but no need to delete it --T-rex 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No scientific, verifiable references. No evidence of significant attention.Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has two Google News hits, 12 Google scholar hits, one of which says "In addition, neonates are occasionally given crocodile oil to relieve perceived stomach pain. However, this ..." which looks like a clear case of analysis by a secondary source. Another lists it as a "historical cosmetic". Finally there are 73 Google Books hits. Many of these describe the oil, its uses, or otherwise discuss it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.