User talk:Doctorplastic


 * Since your account has not been blocked, there is no action to be taken on the request. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scarguard
Hello Doctorplastic,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Scarguard for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Benboy00 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Doctorplastic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 220  of  Borg 20:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Scarguard


A tag has been placed on Scarguard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Alexf(talk) 22:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unable to tell the difference between an independent trial and one that is specifically commissioned. Further, it appears that you are prepared to promote falsity over scientific truth on Wikepedia. As you appear neither to be a dermatologist nor a scientist, it is remarkable that you can make such comments, as if you read the literature, occlusion raises collagenase which in turn shrinks scars. The genius of the Scarguard technology is that it does it more effectively than any other technology. If yours is the editorial standard of Wikipedia, it deserves publishing in the New York Times.

Copied from Scarguard talk page
I'm not going to comment on the speedy deletion nomination (although it is the second one that this page has had, after it was deleted a small while ago due to the first), but how exactly is the Mederma page promotional? Pretty much every other sentence has a reference, and two of the three scar tissue trials it talks about were negative. Surely, if anything, thats demotional (rather than promotional)? Looking at the "effectiveness" section (the longest section) on this page, there seem to be no references at all. Most of the text seems to be gushing about the mechanism of the product, rather than the effectiveness. (not so) surprisingly, there is absolutely nothing negative on this page. The writer seems to express adoration for the product, instead of a detached point of view. I notice that you nominated the mderma page for speedy deletion. I dont think this should happen, and so I will remove the tag. Benboy00 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I looked at the references for both articles. I could not access the full text of the studies, so I looked at the methods and abstract. The Mederma page had a brilliant example of a well done trial. They had double blinding, a good control, and a pretty clever idea (treating the halves of the scars with different things). I also had a look at the "trials" for this page. Of the 6 linked articles, only 2 actually looked at scarguard. Of these 2, 1 looked at how scarguard affected "collegenase levels", but did not examine clinical results (i.e. does this stuff actually reduce scarring etc). The other compared scarguard against no treatement. Can you see why this might not be the best study to do? Benboy00 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)