Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Sea Products


 * 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   no consensus. There is no way to read a clear consensus from this discussion, because the article is now in a radically different state from when a number of people originally commented. Given the significant changes, I think we need to start this anew, if that's what anyone still desires. So, those who are still interested, please review the new version of the article, see if the same concerns are still there, and, if so, you're welcome to speedily renominate (or consider another process, like a merge suggestion if you think that would be more appropriate). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead Sea Products

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spam magnet, contains spam links, bad article name, what little useful stuff in the article can be added to the Dead Sea article. Need I go on.... More shit created by newbies and IP editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dubious, self-serving claims by biased peddlers of cosmetics and "cures" made from "Dead Sea Products" that should be taken with more than a pinch of Dead Sea salt (which covers some of the same material better). Zero reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge what Tokyogirl has found to Dead Sea. There are Dead Sea products, but "Dead Sea Products" (and its dubious, unsourced definition) is just a label some companies are trying to promote as a type of collective branding. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dead Sea salt, this is a promotional fork. --Soman (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a promotional fork. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename - based on TokyoGirl's tireless efforts. I hope the author gives her a barnstar. She certainly deserves one. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note re: Soman & Sue Rangell: Promotional? For whom? The article does not seem to be to be promoting any specific company, product or tourism agency. I think a rewrite is in order, but not a merge with Dead Sea salt - Dead Sea mud, for instance, is not quite Dead Sea salt. (I am not, however, voting for either keeping or deletion, as I have nothing to say about the subject's notability.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that they were saying promotional because most of the sources for the article seem to go to various sites that also sell the products, such as Dead Sea Guide, an amazon list of "Top Brand Deal Dead Sea Products", and even more sites that sell Dead Sea Stuff. A look at the sources shows that even the few sources that don't link to merchant sites of various sorts are unusable as reliable sources as they tend to be the sites where the articles are either uploaded by random people or they're the type that are "paid articles". This means that someone (usually a manufacturer) pays someone to write an article that says glowing things about a product or a type of product with the intention of them (the manufacturer) linking to that article in an attempt to pass it off as a legit thing. I know someone who writes these for a living and this is pretty much what she does.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am seeing some valid stuff to back up the claims of Dead Sea products as a whole rather than just specifically Dead Sea Salt. I ended up kind of nuking the previous version because it was fairly promotional. It might not look as such at first until you look at the sources, which all went to merchant sites and other unusable links. The essays that were written are the type that people tend to write for profit at the bequest of a merchant who tells them what to write. The article was also fairly slanted towards Dead Sea products being the cure all of everything out there and I'm finding some criticisms of the products out there. So the result is that I'm going to start it from scratch. I'll re-add things as I find more sources, but right now the previous version was doing more harm than good.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of adding things piecemeal as I find sources that look sort of legitimate. So far the stuff in the article is sourced, but I'm kind of unsure as to whether or not these things could potentially be summed up in another article (main article, DS salt article) or not. I'm hitting up Google scholar, but I've noticed that some of the sources that initially look good (such as this journal entry) seem to have been written by someone involved with a specific producer. This of course means that their research would be considered primary at best, as the above journal entry looks to have been written by a scientist employed by Dead Sea Works. Slow going so far. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Question. Since there is a good rationale for having an article that is about DS products in general, what about merging the article for Dead Sea salt into this one and have it redirect here? The article for DSs does mention other products, so it might be better to have a section on the sale in a larger article about the products in general. Just wondering.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that's a silly idea. The mineral's article should be separate and would make little sense even if we look at the title as product in the way that the salt is a product (non-cosmetic type product, I mean) of the sea.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per Clarityfiend. I did find some sources, but most of this is either already covered in the main article for the Dead Sea or could be fairly easily merged. The main article is big and the concept of the health properties of the DS could probably be spun off, but I'm not entirely certain that this specific title is the proper way to go about it. The term is, as Clarityfiend stated, a branding term for the most part and most of the time the people using this term are merchants. I did find sources, but they're fairly general in nature. It's close and I'd support a different article for the health properties of the DS, but the problem is trying to find a title that wouldn't automatically sound like it's a merchandise page. (Dead Sea health effects and therapies?) This particular term (Dead Sea products) is too limiting and it doesn't help that it would also be a spam magnet. I know that in itself isn't a reason to delete, but it doesn't exactly help either. The only concession I can give for any potential creation of a health effect/therapy page is that the history of this might remain so we can have something to work off of, but then again if we merge the usable sources then that wouldn't really be necessary either.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. I didn't say anything about redirecting. I've restored my delete vote, since that's independent of my merge suggestion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Due to TokyoGirl's efforts the promotional aspects of this article are not nearly as unencyclopedic as they were before. I have no real problem with an article that mentions the (purported) beneficial aspects of a substance or group of substances, as long as it isn't schlepping the store websites of individual sellers. Even if those qualities are dubious. There are countless articles on Wikipedia which have sections that tout the supposed health benefits of various things ranging from magnets to crystals, so "dead sea mud" is no different as far as I can tell. One might want to remove the word "products" from the title tho, and exchange it with a less spammy word such as "material" or "substances". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the article has been improved, Clarityfiend's objections still apply to the article as it stands now. Circumspect (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2012 (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.