Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinshift

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 delete. Former spam or current COI are no reasons for deletion, but unreliable coverage is. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skinshift[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear sufficiently notable, possible spam File Éireann 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a line of skin care products. Advertising, sourced entirely to self-published material, and makes medical claims without medical sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++Made changes after reading the comments above to remove any unsourced medical claims. Please review changes before deleting! Trying to play by WP rules, and respect the guidance offered here by WP editors. Have dramatically re-edited article to make it completely sourced by third-parties. Sources now include three of the top TV shows in the USA and a top 30 circulation newspaper; hopefully, this adequately addresses the noteworthiness of the entry; if not, please tell me the threshold and I will find additional sourced material. Thanks!-- 9User: Johnsaavn User talk:Johnsaavntalk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Have re-edited the page to avoid any unsourced medical claims, and to remove any self-published material previously sourced. Making my best efforts here to comply with and accede to WP standards and practices. If an editor can tell me what else I need to do, will absolutely do it asap. Thanks! --johnsaavn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Also: please note that competitors like Proactiv and others have Wikipedia pages that read and are sourced quite similarly to our page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactiv_Solution. Trying to understand and FIX what I am doing wrong here. Seeking help; will make changes needed if someone will advise me as to what is needed. Thanks! --johnsaavnUser:Johnsaavn —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Product/company is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Also, the creator and only editor of the article is writing about his own business. He confirms that on the articles talk page. The article is spam. Jahoe (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahoe, you clearly are not unbiased in this matter -- since you initiated the proceedings to get this article deleted. I showed you the courtesy of making every requested change, gutting it, and still you push for deletion. What else do I have to do - just tell me, and I will do it!

Additionally, as politely as I can say this: 1) I do not work for Skinshift; you are, again, in error - I run my own company in NJ and have no affiliation with this brand. 2) You repeatedly commented that product pages do not exist on Wikipedia, yet I have shown you multiple places where they do - for example, for Proactiv, a competitor of Skinshift - which rather makes my point completely; 3) Dr. Harper and SKINSHIFT have been featured on Good Morning America, The Doctors, the Dr. Oz program and the Today Show. In other words: every U.S. tv network believes this is a notable product, yet you do not. Isn't your point of view completely extreme here? 4) Again: Please tell me what changes are necessary for this to not be "spam." Clearly, the product is important. Clearly, it is now sourced and referenced in accordance with Wikipedia policy -- I made the very changes you asked me to make.

It strikes me as odd you refuse to relent here; the article, as it stands now, is neutral, sourced, and relevant (as again, every major U.S. TV network has put the product and Dr. Harper on the air).

Tell me what other citations you would possible require, and I will attempt to find them.

Like you, I am totally committed to playing by the rules on Wikipedia. I'm trying to fix this; you refuse to help. User: Johnsaavn({{User talk:Johnsaavntalk]])

We've been trough this already on the articles talk page. By using the term "our competitors" there, you confirmed you are somehow involved in the skinshift product, which makes the article spam. Again: I do not have an opinion on you or your product, but I believe that wikipedia should be kept free of spam. If that conflicts with your interests, than so be it.

I do not seek further discussion with you, but since this page was set up after our earlier discussion on the articles talk page, I felt I had to give my opinion here too. Jahoe (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahoe, you are being spectacularly inaccurate and unfair.

So again, you have no counter-arguments to the points that I do NOT work for this company (i don't!), and that this is a well-known product line that has appeared on every major TV network in the USA (cited) and major papers in the USA (cited).

I do not seek further discussion with you either - unless you actually are willing to address the substantive, legitimate points I have made, and are willing to refrain from inaccurate, subjective speculation you continue to trumpet here. You have made my point, again!

You claim is that this is spam because I am somehow biased, and the product isn't noteworthy.

My claim is the bias you cite is non-existent (I do not work for he company), and that major newspapers and TV networks in the USA -- which I have cited -- say this is a legitimate product, and Wikipedia has pages for product competitors of SKINSHIFT, like Proactiv.

No disrespect, but I have made repeated objective points here; you have expressed only subjective opinion in response.

And I even did you the courtesy of making edits you initially requested - and still you are not satisfied! You simply are being petulant and obstinate.

Again, I ask: what changes would satisfy you here? How might I fix this article so that it would address your concerns?

If you are unable or unwilling to answer this, perhaps you should stand down, sir.

Just because you call something spam, and refuse to change your mind in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary should not make it so. That is not is accordance with WP values, at all. Johnsaavn{talk} —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made edits I requested??? I did not request any edits sir.

You removed portions of text from the article on your own initiative, after I flagged it as spam. Someone else started the current deletion request. See articles history.

I explained my motives to you on the talk page. Read that again if you wish, but please stop repeating yourself. Jahoe (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original proposer of the article for deletion. I still think it should be propably deleted - not very notable and written by someone linked to the company. However there is a great lack of other editors in this discussion for some reason, so I have listed it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for further comment.--File Éireann 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the DRN listing as a regular DRN volunteer because DRN does not handle disputes pending elsewhere (i.e. here), but I have weighed in, below, with my opinion and !vote as a neutral editor. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not a company employee.

Again, if all three major TV networks in the USA covered the product... How is it not notable? Curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (reluctantly). The article may have originally been spammy, but has been purged of that and its appearance on the TV shows and in the newspaper article are enough, if barely, to indicate that it is verifable and thus notable. I might not have felt that way if the only RS was the newspaper article, which looks suspiciously like a regurgitated press release, but the TV coverage is enough. I would note that the three current links to those TV appearances are to Vimeo, not to the original broadcasts, and are almost certainly improper as prohibited links to material which is a copyright violation (see WP:ELNEVER), but they do show that the appearances did occur and that's enough to satisfy WP:V's requirement of verifiability. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly). Having heard the arguments, I am willing to allow it's retention.--File Éireann 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now). I've expanded the article a bit, adding cites of sources independent of the company and adding reportage of other viewpoints. As a sidebar, I'll mention that I came to this discussion after seeing this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article still fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CORPDEPTH; the televised links are promotional, and other coverage is self-published or advertorial. Miniapolis 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Examining the television program segments listed in the article as sources, they amount to pure advertisements: Material so very closely based on press releases is not an acceptable source, and if it appeared on a major network show, shame on them, but we have standards. encyclopedias in general do have higher stands than television shows on medicine, and such shows are therefore not acceptable sources. I don't know if WP:MEDRES applies exactly here, but the general principle is valid. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING (not to mention that there seems to be a possible WP:COI problem with the main contributor going by the talk page). ALH (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (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.