Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATAXIA CURE


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ATAXIA CURE

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is titled "ataxia cure" yet it opens by explicitly saying there is no cure for ataxia. It appears to be a veiled attempt to promote the Frenkel Exercises article. That article is shaky in and of itself but I'll leave it to others to check if it warrants deletion. I'm not sure if this "article" qualifies as G11, A3, or if it should be turned into a redirect, so I'm nominating it for community consensus. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC) (edited 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)))

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same editor and have almost identical wording:


 * Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Ataxia. Though there are some new developments regarding potential cures New hope in hunt for ataxia cure, any such info can be added there. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

KuyaBriBri, please say in what way the Frenkel Exercises article is shaky?

Yes, the references to "cures" in the ataxia articles is to promote call attention to the Frenkel Exercises. Frenkel Exercises are entirely different from the http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-hope-in-hunt-for-ataxia-cure-20100210-nsgm.html article.

Frenkel Exercises are available to everyone, free, and shown to work. Stem cell implantation may or may not work, is expensive, and is available only to those with lots of money.

Those unfortunate enough to suffer from cerebellar ataxia may be searching for a way to improve their condition only to be told they will have to wait until stem cell therapy is widely available, and even then that it's unproven and risky.

This is inhumane and unacceptable given that Frenkel Exercises have been proven to work, at least in some cases. Fletcherbrian 01:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion page is about the three pages you created with "ataxia cure" or something related in the title. I have not and do not presently intend to nominate the Frenkel Exercises article for deletion. Please keep any discussion on this page to discussion on the three "cure" pages. I will gladly respond to your question on Frenkel Exercises on either your user talk page or on the article talk page when I have time to formulate a complete response. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 04:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

KuyaBriBri, I have already conceded that the three pages "ataxia cure" you refer to were created in order to direct attention to Frenkel Exercises. Fletcherbrian 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: No cures for it. Created in order to promote another article. SL93 (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93, on the contrary, in some cases there *is* a cure for ataxia. Yes, I concede that the articles were created to call attention to Frenkel Exercises.

On the question of cure: if for example a patient's ataxia is caused by vitamin B12 deficiency, administration of B12 *will* cure it. Fletcherbrian 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically no content, and redundant with Ataxia, as Gene93k correctly notices. I also invite Fletcherbrian to have a long, deep look at the fact that Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform to advocate medical treatments or anything else. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well now, Cyclopia, I've had a long hard look at your link. One of the first things I noticed is that you changed the name of the link that would appear on your post to include the word "propaganda".

The actual name of the link is "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".

Propaganda is a rather dirty word.

You really shouldn't imply that I am using propaganda.

I am simply trying to help those who may have suffered cerebellar strokes, for instance, to help themselves.

No soapbox, no promotion. Let alone propaganda. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You said yourself that it was promotion. "Yes, I concede that the articles were created to call attention to Frenkel Exercises." SL93 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93, "Call attention to" is not "promotion".

For example, if your mother is ill, you will possibly call the attention of your doctor to her illness.

You aren't promoting her illness.

Do you understand the difference now? Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're comparing an article about a type of treatment to someone's mother being ill? People don't write articles about their mother being ill. :/ SL93 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93, To repeat, "Call attention to" is not "promotion".

Do you understand yet? Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is in this case. They can both be interchangeable. I find it hard to believe that someone would think that Wikipedia is an alright place to post those ataxia "articles" that points to an article that in no way passes WP:Notability. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You made it easier for me because you used the word promote in one of your earlier comments. "Yes, the references to "cures" in the ataxia articles is to promote the Frenkel Exercises." SL93 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I should have used "call attention to".

I've changed it.

Thank you for your help. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just to repeat, as previously stated, there are cures for some types of ataxia (eg those caused by B12 deficiency).

Contrary to what you stated: "No cures for it."

Thank you again. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93, your strikethrough edit above is fair enough. Cheers. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fletcherbrian, whatever you want to call it -attention call, advocacy, whatever- that is not what Wikipedia is about. If you want to call attention to something, use your own website. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have collapsed the above discussion as it is not germane to deletion of the three "articles" in question. I repeat, this discussion is not about the Frenkel Exercises article. Please have this discussion at Talk:Frenkel Exercises, or if anyone believes that article merits deletion, create a new AfD for that article. Any discussion about the Frenkel Exercises article that occurs on this discussion page does nothing to help the three "articles" that are actually nominated for deletion here and furthering such discussion is a waste of time and energy on your part. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But I was talking about those three articles. I said that they are only a means of promotion which means that they should be deleted. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have retracted the collapse. I still believe Fletcherbrian was attempting to use this AfD page to defend the main Frenkel Exercises article, so the rest of my comment above still stands. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't trying to defend the Frenkel article. But I was trying to bring attention to the article for the public good. Cheers. Fletcherbrian (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See: British Medical Journal report on B12 and ataxia
 * Do not delete Clearly, there are some forms of ataxia that can be cured, not merely ameliorated. The article should not be deleted.

B12 and ataxia

magnesium and the brain

magnesium deficiency, and many other sources almost too numerous to list.

Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We already have an article that covers that, as pointed above. (I took the liberty of putting lines of your comment together, for readibility. Hope you don't mind.) -- Cycl o pia talk  12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the liberty you have taken. I have undone your edit of my post. I oppose your view on its readability. Please leave the layout my post as it is. Thank you for your indulgence. Fletcherbrian (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problems, sorry if it bothered you. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all three as promotional and duplicative of the existing article. One is enough. Fletcherbrian, you are not helping your cause here with your continued advocacy. The point is not whether these things "work" or "don't work," or "cure" or "don't cure". There already is an article for the Frenkel Exercises. You're not allowed to spam Wikipedia with multiple pages saying the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all three - clear WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Ataxia, nothing to merge.  01:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all three: as having no content and being blatantly and explicitly promotional. Honestly, why is this "discussion" still open?   Ravenswing   05:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Ravenswing, "promotional" is "a term used in marketing". I am not marketing anything. With the best will in the world, you should use the correct words to describe that which you are criticizing. However, I am trying to bring attention to Frenkel exercises. They are not for sale, they are free. Fletcherbrian (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: "Promotional" is indeed a term used in marketing. There are indeed many terms used in marketing, but as has already been explained to you, Wikipedia does not bind the term exclusively to making money.  You are seeking to promote this other subject.  That's against Wikipedia rules, period.   Ravenswing   21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The material is promotional. The discussion has taken place and an admin needs to close this subject sooner than later. --Stormbay (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

'''I wish to delete this article but it seems I am not allowed to. Somebody explain please.''' Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Simple: it's not "your" article, but Wikipedia's article, and articles get deleted under formal guidelines. Normally an article that otherwise fails retention guidelines will be deleted if the creating editor wants it deleted, but in this particular case, the AfD will close very soon and the article will be promptly deleted.   Ravenswing   04:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Ta Chuck. Fletcherbrian (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer The formatting may be a bit messy, but I think all participants, including the creator, have !voted to delete. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete them all as unreferenced nonsense. King Jakob  C2 17:49, 29 June 2013 (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.