Talk:Resveratrol Lozenges

I know there is disagreement as to whether or not this should be a topic in Wikipedia. Here is why I believe it qualifies as a stand-alone topic, is noteworthy, and has important values to readers.

First, it is true that we can’t be sure whether or not resveratrol lozenges will deliver all the potential benefits. But wouldn’t you think that there is such a possibility? Wouldn’t you think the public (at least those who take resveratrol supplements) should know that the bioavailability of oral resveratrol pills is extremely low? Wouldn’t you think they should know that resveratrol lozenges may have higher bioavailability and therefore better benefits? You know most consumers are taking oral resveratrol pills that have extremely low bioavailability. You know most likely they are wasting much of what they have spent money on. You know you can’t do anything about it. You know that by taking resveratrol lozenges consumers may have a much better chance getting the benefits. If we don’t allow consumers to know the information and keep them in the dark, we aren’t really protecting the public and we are actually doing harm to them. Wouldn’t you think so?

Second, while some people may want to wait 10 or 20 years for the benefits of resveratrol to be clinically proven, there are people including myself who don’t want to wait that long. Why, because by then it might be too late to take resveratrol pills and get any benefit at all. Our biological clock is always ticking and doesn’t wait for us to prove everything.

Third, the only factor that determines whether or not an article should be in Wikipedia is the article itself. Don’t let your suspicion of others’ intention determine your conclusion. This article does not mention any company or brand name. And everything in the article is from reliably sourced references. If you disagree with anything of the article, you can always edit it to make it better. I’m sure your effort to improve it will be highly appreciated by all who read it. Thank you! --Pushroll (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this wiki article is pure spam

seriously even the scientist that discovered this substance MAY have some amazing attributes is against all this crap, how can you say lozenges work better when you don't even know if a drug works at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.158.242 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also if i had to guess user hanxu9 and pushroll are the same company but hanxu9 is here to make people want to put a link up to this companies page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.158.242 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 March 2010

To whomever left this message here: No matter how imaginative you are and how much you believe your imagination, there is no need to use dirty language here. Wikipedia is a civilized place and you owe everyone an apologue.--Pushroll (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ~~It obvious the article was written to promote a product by people with a conflict of interest,~~ It is in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed the article with some explanatory edits and edit summaries. I can explain in more detail if needed. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, in your editing, first you deleted much of the content and left only a stub. Then you said a stub is useless and it’s best to delete everything. --Pushroll (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the new [1] references met WP:RS. Worse, they're all based upon past versions of this very article. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal opinions nor for promoting business interests. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, don't mix the references and the article as if they are one thing. You said earlier that the references were primary. So I changed them to secondary. --Pushroll (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to address the problem with the primary sources. Secondary sources based upon past versions of this article are not reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made it clear from the beginning that it's about winning. I hope you realize that it is not right.--Pushroll (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles in Wikipedia have the effect of promoting certain products (for example, the article about Firefox may have the effect of promoting Firefox browser). Are you going to remove all these articles from Wikipedia? According to Wikipedia rules, simply having a product as its subject does not qualify an article for deletion (this article is not about a particular product, but about a category of products). --Pushroll (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other stuff exists. The comparison isn't relevant. This article didn't have a single independent, reliable source on the topic of the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just your personal opinion, and you are wrong.--Pushroll (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To 98.242.161.217

It is well known that intraoral administration overcomes first-pass effect, which is mainly responsible for the low bioavailability of resveratrol. I couldn't see why that lozenges disintegrate slowly is a problem. In addition, there are buccal studies that did not use ethanol. Please read the cited papers in the article.--Pushroll (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not well-known, otherwise we'd have independent sources for it. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known in the field. Of course, people outside the field may not know it.--Pushroll (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it cannot be verified, it can be removed per WP:V.

If it is a conclusion made by synthesizing information from multiple solutions, then it can be removed per WP:SYN.

If it is material intended to promote a viewpoint, especially a product, not supported by independent sources, then it can be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I can see your goal is to remove the article, one way or another. It is not the way to treat any article. I hope you won't remove this comment.--Pushroll (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]