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 Speedy keep(non-admin closure) the nominator has changed his vote to 'keep' and there are no other delete votes. - Icewedge (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corneotherapy[edit]

Advertising of a dubious skin 'concept' of no clear notability, orphan article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GoogleScholar shows adequate notability, but the current article is completely lacking in balance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a bit perturbed to see just one guy's name on all the research, but the journals seem to be reputable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite the entire thing from scratch RogueNinja_talk 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six hits at PubMed (e.g., PMID 10894961). Probably "notable", which is different from "important". I'd also support merging it to another article, if a suitable candidate was proposed. It'd make a nice paragraph related to the mechanism of moisturizing dry skin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 3 September 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.