Talk:S-200 (bioremediation)

Any 3rd Party Verification
Can anyone out there verify any of this - looks like this is a mini-infomercial from the product manufacturer?

I like the idea of the product, but can't find any information out there that doesn't sounds like it was canned from the company. All of the references listed here are hosted on the manufacturer's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.83.153 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bogus "approval"
I've removed content that stated that this is on an EPA "approved list". Not only was that content sourced to to bad sources (PDF photostats of paper letters, self-published by someone with a direct commercial interest on xyr own WWW site, that could have been put together by computer for all that we know) but even were the sources reliable, they explicitly say that such listing "does not constitute approval". Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead changes
with the recent changes (which are good, IMHO), the article's name should be changed to 'S200'. Would that screw up the AfD? NoCal100 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The AFD template is designed to cope with articles being renamed as they are discussed.  S-200 is already taken &mdash; which is why, you'll note, the article's creator originally entitled this article S-200 (OilGoneEasy).  Personally, I'd prefer something along the lines of S-200 (fertilizer). Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll move it to S-200 (fertilizer). NoCal100 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)