Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocence


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Biocence

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a non-notable commercial product. The article contains all kinds of hyperbole ("it was repetitively verified that the BBC was able to effectively eradicate, on contact or in less than 30 seconds (according to verified time kill studies), numerous emerging superbugs" - but that's what all antiseptics do) and marketing-speak ("regenerative powers of natural hydrocarbon components") that make no sense scientifically. Some of the references mention the product, but are not really about this product. This is just advertising. Deli nk (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete This is a response in opposition to user Deli nk's request to delete the Biocence article. Please let it be noted, Biocence is a notable product registered with the United States Food and Drug administration and sold internationally with the backing of the United States Department of Commerce. To claim something is a "non-notable product" as criteria for deletion, is in itself making an opinionated supposition not based in fact and not in line with wikipedia guidlines. The user's claim that the article contains "all kinds of hyperbole" is inaccurate. The article factually claims that the FDA approved product kills known pathogens in less than 30 seconds and provides references supporting that fact. The user then states "but that's what all antiseptics do", which is a highly opinionated and inaccurate statement not based in fact. It is not clinically proven that all antiseptics can kill or eradicate deadly pathogens in "0" kill time or in less than 30 seconds. Furthermore, with regards to the editors claim that said article is filled with marketing speak and advertising, in particular referring to the phrasing "regenerative powers of natural hydrocarbon components", the editor is not accurately referencing the entry on Vibrational Medicine and the Mortal Oscillatory Rate of cells by which the Science of Vibrational Medicine is based on. To the contrary, if any due diligence was done, it would be noted that all references listed for this article completely pertain to the product and technology for which it is about. Any further suggestions to improve this article are greatly welcome and appreciated. Hong Lou Meng (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is probably spam and is most definitely not notable. The article takes lines directly from a press release to assert its notability. WP:GNG makes it clear that sources for notability must be independent of the subject e.g., not a press release (see also: WP:SPIP) Furthermore, registering a product with the FDA does not automatically make the product notable. The ferocity of the creator's defense, his lack of assuming good faith, and the fact that he has only edited the Biocence article after returning from hiatus, makes me think he might have a conflict of interest Lebowbowbowski (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is not spam. Respectfully, I have taken great time and care to write this article in good faith to provide documented information on a notable technology that exists, saves lives, and has documented proof of its effectiveness. I have also compiled references to support the articles' validity and continue to improve upon the article by collecting additional references to support it. Upon close inspection, the article in no way reflects spam. I am a graduate student of Herbal Medicine and have done my best to factually document the history and technology of this notable technology in an unbiased manner. I have no relationship to the company whatsoever nor do I have any personal or professional interest in the company or the creator.  Editors of wikipedia who may be drawing conclusions claiming the article is spam have failed to consider the breadth of scientific information provided in the article; and/or the criteria of notability for Academics as well. Furthermore, I am clearly aware that all criticisms are done in good faith, including my own. I suggest that it's vitally important to improve the writing of any article, rather than only insist that it be completely deleted. I believe the article can improve and is being improved upon. Additonally, the statement referring to "The ferocity of the creators defense" is questioned, yet duly noted. If an article can be improved upon, and much time has been spent in compiling factual information to make it comply with wikipedia's standards, then it makes logical sense for the editor to point out constructive criticisms and any areas that might be deficient or need improvement. That is how I am learning to perfect articles here as part of this community.  Suggestions for improvement are welcome. I do strive to make this article complete, factual and accurate as I believe it already shows and will continue to show as improvements are made. Hong Lou Meng (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable per Wikipedia criteria. To User:Hong Lou Meng, please understand that Wikipedia does not list every product in the world, only products which are notable according to well-defined, objective criteria: the product must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Biocence has not received any such coverage that I can find. Google News (a search engine to see if anyone has written about it) finds absolutely nothing. Google Scholar (a place to look for academic or scientific reporting about the product) finds nothing but the product's own website. The references listed in the article are not independent; for example reference #2, which is titled "US Department of Commerce" to make it appear independent, actually links to a page on BuyUSA.gov where the text was obviously supplied by the company itself. If the product is not notable, as demonstrated by independent coverage from reliable sources, then no amount of rewriting or improving the article is going to help. The problem is not with the way the article is written; it's that the product simply does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.