Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fertility Retreat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 both. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fertility Retreat

This nomination will become is complex. Please bear with me until all the articles within it are completely listed The articles are now completely listed Or I think they are!). The set of articles is here for the community to form a judgement on. At the end of this some may survive and others fail. We should thus attempt to be specific about those we wish, as individual articles, to keep.

The article "Fertility Retreat" is being used as a starting point to try to untangle what appears to be a publicity campaign WP:AGF notwithstanding, by the article's creator on behalf of Randine Lewis, and one or more other people or organisations. There is a web of redirects and links and other additions that the closing admin will need to address in any articles flagged for deletion by consensus at the end.

My nomination is that they are all advertorial or designed to enhance the notability of the advertorial of other articles. Or, to put it simply: Spam. If there is a better route than AfD for this set of nominations that woudl be useful to know Fiddle Faddle 07:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Articles:

That completes the nomination of main pages. I am assuming that, should this nomination succeed, all related redirects and other spam links will be part of it. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Note there is additional information at Talk:Fertility Retreat, which prompted this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. NN. Dionyseus 08:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom regarding Fertility Retreat, Randine Lewis, and Novas Software, Inc.. Due to a personal connection with FIOS, Inc., I abstain on that nomination. I can see some discussion regarding the notability of the articles, but I think it's clear they are advertorials. Tychocat 08:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. However, Randine Lewis seems sort of notable. So, she might deserve her own, completely rewritten, article. -- Koffieyahoo 08:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fertility Retreat. both.--Kchase T 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) This Washington Post article is sort of human interest, but there's some other press coverage of the phenomenon. There's another practitioner, [1], but I can't find any more. Delete all the others. If Randine Lewis actually has all this press coverage, it needs to be verified, and until then, it's as good as vanity/spam.--Kchase02 T 08:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Randine per Amazon book rank 5500 and three articles (WaPo, ChiSunTimes, MplsStar). Delete Fertility Retreat, not notable yet. ~ trialsanderrors 10:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

trialsanderrors has pointed out, correctly, that this AfD is not listed properly procedurally. The procedural issues have been moved to trialsanderrors's talk page for you to see. I am about to take the following actions:

  1. remove Fios and Novas from this afd
  2. Mention in this AfD that the same creator also created F and N
  3. Leave Fertility and Randine Lewis in this one
  4. nominate F & N seperately
  5. Create totlally new afd1s in F&N
  6. on the F and the N AfD pages note Randine etc and the other article

When this is complete I will make a further note here. My apologies for any confusion I have caused. From this point on please leave your opinions for ONLY Fertility Retreat and Randine Lewis. These articles were created by Amplifychristian in what currenlty appears to be a PR campaign. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The procedural relisting is now complete. I am about to notify users who have already expressed an opinon here on their talk pages of this fact to ensure corect consensus is reached. Again my apologies for procedural errors. Fiddle Faddle 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fertility retreat, definitely spam; weak delete Randine Lewis without prejudice to laer re-creation of a non-spam article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. (Full disclosure: I was the one who suggested this was a deliberate ad campaign.) As others have mentioned above, Randine Lewis may be a candidate for a future NPOV article, starting from scratch. Based on what searching I've been able to do, fertility retreats seem to be a not yet notable practice. Fan-1967 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • note please see comments from the articles' creator and others on Talk:Fertility Retreat I've left a message on their talk page about the AfD process to make sure, as a relatively new editor, they understand the process. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just re-read Fertility Retreat. It says: "Who first coined the phrase "Fertility Retreat"? Dr. Randine Lewis of The Fertile Soul was the first individual to offer fertility retreats. When news outlets started covering Dr. Lewis' fertility-enhancing retreat program and reporting on their effectiveness, other licensed acupuncturists and herbalists starting offering their own fertility retreat programs.", thus it is also a self declared neologism. This adds to the rationale for review for deletion or retention. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep I don't understand why entries that I've made are being labeled as 'spam.' I have knowledge of these companies that I've made entries for and strayed away from any sort of 'advertisial speak' present. In fact, for the other entries (as well as this one) I've made I modeled the format after other similar entries. I think it's unfair to label me as being some sort of "PR person" just because I made several entries in a short amount of time. Sure, label me incorrectly as being this if I were to make entries that seemed like advertisements. But I do believe the entries I've made are neutral in language and provide information for people who are interested in that company and/or person.

In regards to Fertility Retreats, yes, I think it stands as being something notable. I tried to stay away from bias in any regard to Randine Lewis, just because I know who she is and have knowledge that there are other people who engage in these 'fertility retreats.' If someone believes that I'm 'spamming' or having an 'advertisial tone' in my entires (which I've entirely tried to stray away from), then I would appreciate it if you were to edit the page! I've provided a couple of articles that show some credibility into what a "fertility retreat" is and how it could be a notable entry for Wikipedia.

My hope is that users don't just read Fiddle Faddle's comments about me/my entries and automatically assume I'm spamming. If each user could take a little bit of time, look over the entries I've created/edited, and looked for themselves how they contain NO 'advertisial speak' AND no bias and are, in fact, MODELED after other entries in similar categories (my examples being Synplicity, Mentor Graphics, and Synopsys for the EDA category for my entry Novas Software, which is also being targeted for deletion just because one user thought I was trying to advertise) then I would feel confident in the fact that other users would see entries I've created as being neutral and, in fact, informative and similar to other entries in their respective categories and fields. PLEASE take a look at this entry along with the others that I've created and see that I'm not employing in any "PR efforts" or trying to advertise for said companies - I'm just creating neutral entries for companies which are modeled after similar ones. Why I'm being targeted as 'spamming' and such, I don't know.

And to address Fiddle Faddle's latest comment - I do believe he's picking at straws to make sure all of my entries are deleted. I don't know what I did to this user, but it seems like he/she is on some sort of 'mini-mission' to have everything I've done on here deleted. If I engaged in any sort of advertisial tone or spamming, then I could see why he/she has his/her rationale. If you have a problem with anything in any entry I've made, made note of it, edit it, whatever.--Christian B 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have received a similar question on my talk page. I have given a full answer there. I stand by my comments completely. I am sorry that Christian B is upset, but my nominations are absolutely not personal in any way. Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to assume that you're not a PR stooge. Still, you seem like a fan, no? The articles for Lewis and fetility retreats seem very positive in tone, mentioning nothing about the skepticism Western medicine has about whether any of this actually works (see page 3 of that Post piece and other news coverage linked from her website). In any case, the community is understandably very suspicious of anything that looks like advertising. It would have been helpful if you had provided links to the press coverage initially so that others could pitch in to get the article as neutral as possible.--Kchase T 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising --Xrblsnggt 14:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologisms, advertising, puffery; neither article makes any pretence of meeting NPOV/V/RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Vanispamcruftisement. Nothing in Google to indicate she and her organization are notable. She is cute, though.Herostratus 21:02, 16 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Fertility_Retreat_4690.html"