Talk:Tecnu

Deletion

This article should be deleted because:

• It is not notable
• Sole purpose of article is promote Tecnu
• No Secondary tertiary Sources/References only primary ones present i.e. links to buy the product --Bit Lordy (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed my hangon tag. I found this reference misleading (well, it mislead me!) [1]

Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In defense of this article

I wrote this article. It's for a US brand-name skin cleanser which was originally formulated to remove radioactive dust from skin. This fact is referenced. As such the product has a legitimate claim to being part (albeit small) of American Cold War history. It was later shown to be effective against urushiol and is sold widely as a poison oak, ivy, and sumac remedy. The article as posted is Wikified; I don't understand why it was tagged as needing Wikification. I've added categories. All helpful suggestions welcome. Leoniana (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any references that are 3rd party (i.e. not from the company that manufactures this product). That would help. Perhaps if this skin cleanser is talked about by a reliable media outlet?

Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional references and one relevant external link have been added. This article is Wikified sufficiently, in my view. Any more and it becomes a link farm, which I don't think anyone wants. Remove "needs Wikification" tag, please? Leoniana (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Better more reliable references

Could we have better 3rd party references for this article? The first two are primary source. Something this "wonderful" must have more significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Additionally, what does the external link actually have to do with the article (other than to suggest that people should get some "Technu" in just incase?Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional references

Hello Jasynnash2: There are multiple third-party sources covering Tecnu, and I have added them. Leoniana (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference 4 is to a broken link. http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=017&issue=02&page=0120 Can anyone provide the correct link? 9 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.7.216 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This reference (4) has still not been corrected. The link just goes to another Wikipedia page with no information about this study, that I could see.

Ed8r (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://cf.linnbenton.edu/scholarship/desc.cfm?ScholarshipPID=315

--Another Believer _(Talk) 04:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" Study

I just noticed that the "Effectiveness" study cited in the article was on *four people*. Hardly a robust study, especially in such a murky area of study as the skin's receptiveness to urushiol. 96.38.97.250 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)