Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocodile oil (2nd nomination)
We are not debating whether the stuff works. We are not the '''Science Police.''' If reliable and independent sources say it works, that its a hoax, or simply that lots of people buy it, that would be sufficient to satisfy |notability. The source cited above, http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/TarkArticle.aspx?ID=2585936 Can croc oil take bite out of skin ailments? , might qualify as a reliable source (I'm not familiar with the source myself) and it in turn says that Reuters earlier had coverage of it, which (if the Reuters article could be found) would be 2 reliable and independent sources, sort of the bare bones of . If reliable sources print stories which repeat propaganda from the promoters of a hoax, that is a shame and makes one reconsider how reliable they really are, but we are not the judges of truth here, just the judges of whether independent and reliable sources exist for writing an article. If an article is kept, it should not be allowed to be a promotion POV advertisement. See HeadOn for an example of a balanced article about a homeopathic remedy
— User:Edison, 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)