Talk:Urinotherapy

You are very fast!
Did You not look inuse mark? When I delite it - see and think :-) Alexandrov 09:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did see your inuse tag. However, upon a quick background search, I found that urinotherapy may not have enough material to be an important encyclopedic article. A quick Google search does not yield any substantially solid resources. Neither does a dictionary.com or a Google "define:urinotherapy" function yield anything. I am led to believe that this is mostly circumstantial and probably mostly hearsay evidence being presented. If it is indeed an important medical treatment, I find it hard to believe that no other medical-Wikipedia related article has this word in it. However, through the course of this major edit it may be proven that urinotherapy is notable enough to warrant its' own article. But, proper and reliable sources must be provided. Luke! 09:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know a Google "urinotherapy" search only yields 874 results, Yahoo! search with the same term only returns 177. Definitely not important enough. Your thoughts perhaps, maybe something on your approach to this article? Luke! 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please, look an article now - and delite db|nonsense and definitely no scientific basis or sources have been provided if You agree with me.
 * And, please look on English in the article - it isn't my first language :-)
 * Regards, Alexandrov 10:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Alexandov. Welcome to Wikipedia. Understandably English may not be your first language and I have copy-edited the article to allow for better English coherency only. I still believe that this article has no major scientific basis to warrant its' own article. I believe that it would be best to allow for an Administrator (or other editors) to provide their feedback on this article. Luke! 10:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I believe that in short time other Wiki-mans find additional data for this ancient therapy - and today popular pseudomedicine method! Alexandrov 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

From my limited experience, this is a substantial and decently written article, sufficient that (IMHO) it's no longer appropriate for speedy. I think it should be taken to AFD and decided there. --Dweller 12:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank You very mach for the warm words :-)
 * There are many strange mind - and deviant articles in Wikipedia, too. Together we can to bring some light on it :-)) Alexandrov 13:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll do it then. --Dweller 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, community always right :-) Alexandrov 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)