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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VieNue Testosterone Cream[edit]

This doesn't appear to be a notable brand - few google hits, all either promotional or non-RS webforums. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product. Despite original author's comments in first edit summary, article seems promotional and is bordeline CSD G11 IMO --TheSmuel (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable product. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the wiki contributors considering this article:

Thanks for reading my article. I'm not trying to promote this product. I do a lot of research for testosterone therapy, and I found this site being promoted on some blogs. I researched it as much as I could, and wanted to post a non-biased informational article about it, in case anyone was considering purchasing it. If there's a product out there that claims to do something, and we can help consumers be more educated about whether or not it actually does what it claims, what difference does it make how notable the product is?.

I tried my best to sound impartial in my article. If my article sounds promotional, please tell me what I can do to change that and I will.

Thank you,

--Tmccarter (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, You've made me feel bad now. I agree with you in some respects, but we can't change the policy (as much as I would sometimes like to) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Me too; for what it's worth, I was assuming you weren't trying to promote it (the article is far from promotional in tone, and would be a good article on a more mainstream product); the point is that I don't think it's mainstream enough that there are lots of reliable third-party sources about it. There are so many types of jollop out there I don't think wikipedia ought to cover every little brand. I know this makes me a bit of a deletionist, and respect the views of people who would be more inclusive. I guess if there are lots of places offering "homeopathic testosterone" then the phenomenon could be noted and appraised on the testosterone article, perhaps Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to agree too. As has been said above, the product is non-notable and a short article (though clearly written in good faith) that focuses on that product alone, including listing the ingredients and linking to the product's web site, is likely to come across as promotional. --TheSmuel (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable project lacking WP:RS coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Effort to be impartial is laudable, but there's no amount of effort that can make a good article without good sources. By the way, it's clear to people familiar with homeopathic terminology what "5% homeopathic testosterone" is: it is water. Looie496 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spongefrog, Pseudomonas (love that name) and Smue - please don't beat yourselves up any. This coyly-disinterested, well-meaning apologia by Tmccarter-non-user-page reads like woo-salesman concern trolling IMHO. I cannot WP:AGF for a claim of impartiality that states of the product: "While it is unclear exactly what 5% homeopathic testosterone is, the supplement most likely boosts your body's testosterone production using natually derived ingredients." This is wank in tap water claiming to be a legitimate 'supplement' product, with a few weaselly caveats of semi-apologia to hopefully boost the outside chance of a Keep and the subsequent 'expansion' once eyes are elsewhere. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (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.