Talk:Bengay

Fair use rationale for Image:Bengay.jpg
Image:Bengay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Teen dies of Ben-gay overdose
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3445361&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

I think it is highly relevant to the article, and it should be added.--Moeburn 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [EDIT] Nevermind, I see someone already added it. Damn you people are fast.

both the CNN link in the article and the above link to fox news are dead 172.202.115.41 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
"Bengay: For balls 90% more ball-burning action" please remove this fron the article, no such version of the product exists. Sooawesome (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, Don't put it on your balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.109.68 (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to mention that it is cautioned against this type of use? I'm guessing that the number of people who have tried this is staggering and such a mention may save atleast one poor soul the agony.--208.38.98.155 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This content is not encyclopedic, and hence should not be included. Or it could be that I want people to try it. You never know. -- Truthful Cynic  05:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following content from the article since it was unverifiable information and written in first person.

"Anyone with a heart condition, or taking any anti-inflammatories, such as ibuprofen or asrin, should seek medical advise before use, as arrythmias or death can result from the accumulation of such in the organs, as Bengay also contains an ingredient the same as asprin, which can be absorbed through the skin and cause toxic levels to build in the body (personal experience, Shands Lake Shore, Lake City, Florida)"

96.41.229.44 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEPROD
Oh, come on, how can you think this aggressively advertised product was not notable. Evidence:, , ,. ~Kvng (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume this is where your discussion is, so I have a question - do you actually have HighBeam access, or are you just pulling results off the free search? I'm asking because looking at what you're posting, if you'd read the material, you'd see that what you're claiming as notability isn't.  The first HB source is at best a humor article, and the second HB source is about a vacation at a dude ranch.  As for the rest, theathleteinme.com article is about methyl salicylate poisoning, and we can't use a student's oral presentation from Butler as RS.


 * "Aggressive advertising" is not notability. Not every product that exists is notable for purposes of Wikipedia, because not every product is written about in secondary sources.  "Notability" in Wikipedia is not "I've heard about it" or "I know what it is" or "somebody mentioned the name once in some article I Googled, or something that looks close enough to the name that I'm going to assume it's right" and therefore "we should keep it."  MSJapan (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have HighBeam access through the WP:LIBRARY. What I posted is selected from the tip of the iceberg of the huge number of hits you get from any Bengay or Ben-Gay search:
 * I beleive I've posted enough evidence of notability here to justify deprodding or reverting a bold redirect. I'm not convinced what I've posted here is enough to prevail at AfD but I'm confident that I and other editors will be able to find compelling evidence in the case you or anyone else decides to nominate this for deletion again. ~Kvng (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I beleive I've posted enough evidence of notability here to justify deprodding or reverting a bold redirect. I'm not convinced what I've posted here is enough to prevail at AfD but I'm confident that I and other editors will be able to find compelling evidence in the case you or anyone else decides to nominate this for deletion again. ~Kvng (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I beleive I've posted enough evidence of notability here to justify deprodding or reverting a bold redirect. I'm not convinced what I've posted here is enough to prevail at AfD but I'm confident that I and other editors will be able to find compelling evidence in the case you or anyone else decides to nominate this for deletion again. ~Kvng (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't. "Significant coverage" isn't based on a certain number of hits, it's based on depth of coverage, and that's just not here.  "People know about it" isn't a valid keep rationale.  Marketing hits for advertisements, press releases on sponsorships, etc., don't do it, because it's brand going on a banner because the parent company paid for it, and thus it's not independent of the subject (which is why press releases are generally not acceptable for notability).


 * WP:V and WP:N are two different things, which is why we have WP:ENN. If you think that what you've found thus far won't prevail at AfD, then it shouldn't have been deprodded - a deletion for failing N is a deletion for failing N whether it's prodded or AfDed. If appropriate sources don't exist, then they don't exist.  The burden of proof on Wikipedia is always on the editor asserting notability, not the editor asserting a lack of it.  Therefore, if you're going to deprod and assert notability (not just for this product, but it holds anyway), you need to show it, not just claim it, especially when what you use for proof isn't standing up to close examination of the sources.  I'm not seeing much of anything of value, and your hyphenated search is pulling up a ton of hits for Ben Gay the football player, not the topical analgesic.  If we're going to have an article, it absolutely cannot be a copy of the package information, and I'm just not seeing the kind of coverage that should be there.  However, because it is verifiable, and it is made by a notable company, a redirect makes sense. MSJapan (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

MSJapan, with all due respect, but you are completely off base. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I considered the proposed deletion potentially controversial based on the sources I found and posted above and so deprodded. I didn't think that blanking and redirecting improved anything so I reverted that. If you think my deprod was wrong, your next step is to bring this to AfD. If you think my revert was wrong, your next step is to gain consensus here (using WP:RFC if necessary) that the article should be blanked. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI I came across the AfD and followed it here. Deleting/redirecting a medication with more than 100 years of history and a very recognizable name are going to be controversial. That doesn't necessarily mean there's going to be enough for an article, but I'd be surprised. I posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to get additional opinions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is pure spam. There is nothing notable about it as a medicine/health product and there is nothing remarkable about the brand.  This is not like Tylenol which is a remarkable brand. The de-proder has a history of de-prodding articles badly; way to go man - just allow abuse of Wikipedia as an advertising medium to roll right on.  I have redirected to the product class, Heat rub Liniment (could also have done to the API Methyl salicylate) which is what we do with all spam articles about generic medicines that do not show notability as brands.  Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC))
 * I agree with the rationale, but why not Johnson and Johnson? MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From a WP:MED perspective, people looking for the product probably have a muscle ache and want to understand the products that help with that. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing good-faith work to improve coverage in this area. I don't think it is exactly what I would have done or what I wanted but you took the initiative to do it thoughtfully, the critical material and search terms are retained and I'm good with that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Larry Bird commercial
User:107.77.203.137 and User:2600:1:F14E:6187:C86C:ADF1:B814:548A. The youtube video violates WP:ELNEVER; in addition, without some secondary source discussing why this video was important, it isn't noteworthy. Secondary sources are how we judge that. If there is some write up on the history of advertising or even just of Ben-gay advertising that says this is important for some reason, that would be great. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I don't care about the content itself, just hate seeing misinformation spread about the copyright. I will leave it to the others to make the argument for inclusion...but if it were to be included, copyright is absolutely not an issue.  Mystic Technocrat (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that is true. Broadcasting something on TV is not "publication" (see page 4 here) and the thing about "publishing" a work without a copyright notice is only about... published works.  What is the basis of your certainty about pre-Berne TV commercials?  Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The basis of my certainty is that I've stood before the DC CCt of Appeals, as well as the Fifth Circuit arguing that they are protected...and lost. I'm not going to link the cases here, as I have no desire to out myself on WP, but if you are competent with Westlaw, you ought to be able to find the cases fairly quickly. In any case, I'm on the other side of the fence now.
 * As I stated, I don't really care about the underlying relevance argument, but I noticed this particular item, and jumped in. Not really anything else to say on the matter.  Carry on.  Mystic Technocrat (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With apologies, per WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, what editors say based on their own authority means nothing in WP - and fwiw see ESSJAY for the kind of bad things that happen when the community starts believing what people say about themselves). Are you aware of a reliable source that says this? Thanks.  I would be generally interested to see your claim verified, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am well-aware of the Essjay saga, as well as the other policiess you so kindly linked. Many, many commercials are linked throughout WP...I'm not claiming any specific authority, and was under the impression it was understood by multiple admins and ubereditors.  In any event, as to a reliable source, I just provided you the breadcrumb trail...Westlaw is definitively reliable.  I'll even give you a date range: 1995-98. Cheers.  Mystic Technocrat (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a final aside, your prolific work on WP is appreciated. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind note. I will keep looking  until I find something definitive on this. (I work with IP law - not arguing at court like you! - but understand that the details do matter.)  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if this commercial isn't a "valid" source (we'll let the suits decide) I think it's fairy well-known that Bird is a huge Bengay proponent. In Jack McCollum's book he talks at length about how Bird refused traditional treatment at the 92 Olympics and instead relied on Bengay almost exclusively. I don't have a copy handy but if someone could find the passage I think it 100% deserves inclusion in this article (or perhaps merge it into the 92 Dream Team article?) Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)