Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naprotechnology

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 of the debate was DELETE. Votes by User:JasonMacey62 and User:Iolancia Rodriguez have been ignored as possible sock/meatpuppets. — JIP | Talk 10:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naprotechnology

This article is written in a style that seems more promotional than informative. Web searches on "naprotechnology" turn up only promotional sites from practitioners and news releases from the inventors of the practice. The article was written by one person, who has also edited references to naprotechnology into Women's health and In vitro fertilisation articles. It does not seem to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article yet. Tim Pierce 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. The article reads like a vanity page. LeContexte 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article can be salvaged with some judicious editing. Endomion 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• My wife's sister had three course of IVF before concieving using this method. We were also sceptical at first because it seemed a bit new age but I think it is actually a genuine medical treatment. I think you should keep the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonMacey62 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC) JasonMacey62 has two edits; one to the article and one to this AfD.
• Agreed it could be salvaged with an NPOV edit, but query if anyone neutral has sufficient knowledge to be able to do this. There don't appear to be any neutral sources on the web - are there any elsewhere? LeContexte 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Re Neutral sources on web- there are articles about Naprotechnology and creighton model in the academic literature. Google Scholar reveals 5 for Naprotechnology and 39 for the Creighton Model. As academic journals are peer reviewed they should be pretty unbiased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iolancia Rodriguez (talk • contribs).
• Keep- I have had a brief look at the journals and it seems ok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iolancia Rodriguez (talk • contribs). Iolancia Rodriguez has two edits, both to this AfD.
• Delete unless NPOV and reputable references can be found, which I doubt. Else remove the advertising. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:37, 2 January 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.