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. v/r - T P 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allumera[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cosmetic product with no significant coverage in third-party sources. Zero results in Google Scholar, and the only Google News results are reprints of a press release. The article is referenced with scientific studies that are about this type of treatment/product, but not the specific product itself. (Please note that the article was speedy deleted as G11 several months ago, and the current article was deprodded by its creator.) SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the article creator (Medisinmannen (talk · contribs)) has a possible COI, as the majority of his edits are related to Photocure, the company who makes Allumera. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: "(Please note that the article was speedy deleted as G11 several months ago, and the current article was deprodded by its creator." That delition was for other reasons than you use.

Keep The reason for I write about Photocure is my interests for Norwegian biotechnology and Photocure and PDT in special. I also have interest in other Norwegian biotech companies like Algeta, Diagenic and PCI Biotech but I do not have time and the knowledge of this companies. I think you should focus on the article and don`t make conspirational theories about me and if I have a COI. I do not have anything to do with Photocure and Photocure has nothing to do with anything I write.

I have no problem if the article is deleted because of the quality of the article. But if it is deleted because of the deletion of the old Allumera article and because of my interest in Photocure then I think you are way off. Medisinmannen (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (soft opinion) Performed some edits to clean up the article a bit. FIRST current potential problem is the complete absence of WP:RSMED. The present citations simply do not meet those criteria. However, is this product to be held to that standard? Product seems to fall between a medical standard and "just any cosmetic." SECOND (related) problem is that the reasoning behind WP:RSMED is to prevent overzealous promotion of products for which data is weak, which it IS here (unless there are some sources?), as stated by nominator. THIRD problem is that the WP article doesn't seem to be adding real info compared to the commercial site itself. In aggregate, does not meet WP standards.FeatherPluma (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allumera is a cosmetic product. The clinical trials do not meet the medical standards and the product is not approved or do need to be approved by FDA despite some media claim that Allumera is approved by FDA. In my opinion the WP article is adding new info compared to the commercial site because it states more clearly that Allumera is a PDT product. If it meet WP standards? I cannot say but I hope so :)Medisinmannen (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You're only allowed to vote once. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.