Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indoor tanning lotion


 * 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   keep. The topic is still merge-able, but I'd recommend running a quick RfC to get a bit more consensus on that - it's just that consensus here is towards keep more than merge. m.o.p 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indoor tanning lotion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

For some reason, someone just removed the prod without improving an article. This article has just one external link and no footnotes. This article has been also tagged with maintenance issues for two years, and it has still been accused for self-promotion without verifiability and for weasel words. Answer this: Why does this article have to be "kept"? --Gh87 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - "indoor tanning lotion" is a real product that has existed for decades, is distinct from regular tanning lotion (no SPF), thousands of companies advertise and sell it. The article also had a merge with sunless tanning, which is a completely different product.  Even Jersey Shore's  Pauly D is launching his own line (Wikipedia didn't like the Examiner link, but you can find it easily).  It is an entire industry, separate but dependent on tanning beds.  Your notes about improving the article may be true, but that is never a reason to delete an article.  Half the articles here need improvement.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment To address the nom (ie: For some reason, someone just removed the prod without improving an article.), the rationale for removing the PROD was given on the talk page, and it was clearly noted as such in the edit summary if he had only looked. The article has been cited some and trimmed of weasel words since then.  Of course, those are never reasons to delete an article anyway (WP:ATA) but the article has been improved, with plenty of room for more improvement.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're either the creator or major influence of that article. Therefore, do we have to rely on that rationale?  --Gh87 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A WP:Prod can be contested for any reason and the rational doesn't have to be provided. In any case a rationale was provided on the talk page anyway and Dennis Brown has indeed made improvements to the article, as can be seen in the article history. So the nomination rationale regarding prod removal is both irrelevant and invalid. Polyamorph (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Sunscreen or Tanning oil. It is clearly a real product, however, it's difficult to find third party reliable sources because most search engine results are selling products. I don't think this warrants a seperate article unless third sources are forthcoming. Adding a section into Sunscreen Tanning oil to discuss tanning oils including indoor tanning lotion would be sensible. Polyamorph (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC) striked out Sunscreen, not a suitable article to be merged into. Polyamorph (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep as is a product distinct from Tanning oil and obviously is not Sunscreen. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 10:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge it may exist, but in order to qualify for separate article evidence of non-trivial coverage is needed.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  08:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sunless tanning, which covers the same topic in more depth. Tanning oil is not a good merge target, since it's a dab page. -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, indoor tanning lotion is the exact opposite of sunless tanning, and tanning oil is just a DAB page, which is why the article exists, to explain the differences between lotion to make UV exposure unneeded (sunless), and lotion to enhance UV exposure (indoor tanning lotion). There is no article to properly merge TO even if that was needed.  There has been enough cleanup and citation to justify at this point anyway.  (added) If it was merged to Tanning Oil, it would actually be a move, not a merge.  Tanning Oil, again, is a DAB page.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Look, if this AfD is resulted a no consensus, I will nominate this article again in another six months. If kept, twenty-four.  --Gh87 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both this article and Sunless tanning discuss DHA-based bronzers and tyrosine-based products claimed to stimulate melanin production. They are the same topic. This article differs primarily in taking a POV stance on melanin production. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DHA doesn't create or stimulate melanin. It is basically a skin "stain".  A bronzer.  If the sunless article makes that claim, it would be in error and should be corrected, which has nothing to do with this article.  Dennis Brown (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both this article and Sunless tanning discuss DHA-based bronzers (which don't stimulate melanin) and both articles discuss tyrosine-based products (which are claimed to stimulate melanin). Therefore this article is redundant. I don't see much content worth merging either. -- 202.124.73.94 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both articles on Chevrolet and Ford discuss V8 engines as well, so the argument is a non-starter. Since AFD, the article has been cited, the subject matter is distinct (even if a few brands share similar ingredients to other products), and it is a unique product.  Because tanning beds are currently politically INcorrect for many is no reason to delete an article that covers products used in them. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are other means of sunless tanning than lotions, in particular cartotenoids. They are, appropriately discussed in the more general article. If the present article is not more in depth for lotions, increase the detail.  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has no properly referenced content, which is a concern since WP:RSMED applies to the melanin production claims. -- 202.124.73.202 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 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.