Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herpaflor


 * 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   deletion. (WP:SNOW)

Herpaflor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article on a "natural" anti-Herpes supplement. The article reads like spam. Ghits are to Herpaflor.com, a few blogs, and a ton of web ads. No Gnews hits for it. Probable snake oil. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: A gsearch for "herpaflor" and the article creator's name, Dylan Morris, results in a ton of hits. Definitely spam. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Needs to be rewritten from scratch to become encyclopedic. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a message from the creator saying that the article should be kept on the grounds of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. See User talk:Blanchardb. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a similar message, see User talk:Justinfr. He's new, so maybe it was intended for one of you all. justinfr (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Zero hits on google scholar.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam, non-notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja talk  03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Snake oil ad trying to deceive people. The references don't hold up (havent't checked all), e.g. there are in vitro tests. Very few ghits other than ads. Narayanese (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete spam. Doesn't meet notability.  And can we have a list of that OTHERSTUFF that exists, so we can review its notability as well?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam, only because there's no CSD criteria for quackery. As per Narayanese, the studies I checked were were either in vitro or had horrible, horrible, methodology. For example, Walsh et al. (1983), the first study I could find that involved humans rather than test tubes, mailed postcards to people and simply asked if the lysine had been effective! (No random assignment.) Regardless, there are no citations for the claims made about the product itself rather than its individual ingredients and therefore it's also not notable. justinfr (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: subject is unpopular. Author had conflict of interest and article is loaded with lots of spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:10, 25 August 2008 (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.