Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ETC (Water)


 * 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. &mdash; Joseph Fox 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ETC (Water)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The product is not notable, as far as I can tell. What counts as references is neither impartial nor significant. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. With millions of worldwide Wikipedia users. Making use of factual information in over 10 languages. It is arguable. That the irrelevance of the ETC (Water) article can be based on one individuals personal opinion. Notably, the company produce a bottled drinking water. Considerably low in calcium. Particularly significant for a drinking water sourced in England, much of which has an average calcium content of around 30mg. It is not suggested that Drmies may understand, sympathise or be at all interested in the relevance of the article, or the product. Although possibly a fraction of the millions of people who use Wikipedia to learn, may. And, a fraction of those users of the Encyclopaedia. Perhaps, may even suffer from a condition called Hyperparathyroidism. Hyperparathyroidism occurs when one or more of the four parathyroid glands grows into a tumour and behaves inappropriately by constantly making excess parathyroid hormone regardless of the level of calcium. In other words, one of the parathyroid glands has lost its control mechanism and continues to make large amounts of parathyroid hormone without paying attention to how high the blood calcium is. Thus, even when the calcium level is high. When the parathyroids should not be making any hormone at all, one of the glands keeps making hormone. This can also probably be read about on Wikipedia, unless it hasn’t been posted, because a handful of people and their ignorance. Find the subject ‘not notable’. And considering we must consume water in order to survive. It might be considered notable to know which manufacturers produce a product with content (or calcium levels) suited to suffers of the condition. Essentially. A food product. That has a low calcium content. That can be ingested to suit medical or dietary illness or conditions, is a notable product. As for extra sources, the post is open to all. And the editor encourages useful input and editing. Although as with much of history, science, learning and evolution. Time plays a notable part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm afraid you've missed the point on notability guidelines. Anyone can claim their product is important, but as far as inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned, notability means your product has been written about in reliable sources, usually newspapers. (Well, I suppose Ben Goldacre might be interested in writing about this product, but I suspect you wouldn't like what he has to say.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Companies and organisations are prohibited from posting promotional and advertising content on Wikipedia. I’m afraid it is you, Chris Neville-Smith. Who may be confused as to the origins, and nature of the article itself. As a sufferer of Hyperparathyroidism, and regular user of Wikipedia. This places entitlement upon me, to highlight a product. In some aspects, detrimental to the dietary requirements of my condition. You evidently, do not suffer from illness or dietary complications.  Quote from your last edit ‘notability means your product has been written about in reliable sources, usually newspapers'. As above, the product is not my own to claim. And with regards to reliable sources, 'usually newspapers'. Time has been taken to obtain some verifiable articles about the product. Notably again, point 1 in notes of the article. Displays content, in online news publication; Caterer Search. The definition of what Caterer search is; according to Google is exactly as follows, ‘news’. It would not be rational to argue that news should necessarily be laid on print paper; considering the effects of global warming and increased mass landfill from consumer waste.Together with the need for editors to link from their posts to the online versions of any content. Or that you Chris Neville-Smith, read every online, printed or other news publication worldwide. Particularly about topics, that in this case, as you have demonstrated - do not relate to you personally. To enable you to categorically define the constitution of what 'news' is. It is also worth noting, that this is not the only source. There are others not listed in the article due to needing to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.   Mr Goldacre appears a wonderfully talented individual. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a social media tool. Personal opinion cannot bear relevance to fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines on what is regarded as notable and how that is determined. No evidence is provided that this water has been discussed in reliable sources to the extent that it can be deemed notable. Please check those guidelines by clicking on the links. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Dmries above and my previous tagging. Global940, I definitely understand wanting to highlight products you've found so helpful... but that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what a personal blog is for. Sorry. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been no evidence to support your personal opinion. That the article is not, notable, or in fact disreputable. Other than the editor Dmries, who initially created this thread. Which tallies your opposition numbers to a grand total of three. The two other participants who have so far taken part in the debate; LadyofShallot and Gene93k. Have shown no reason to recommend removal of the Article. Thus demonstrating ‘peoples’ want to perhaps be made aware of this product. Or simply learn. Based on this information. We can only summarise at differing opinions, based on results which see a 3 in favour, 3 against – for the article to continue serving its purpose. Factual information. Quote Chris Neville-Smith ‘Please check those guidelines by clicking on the links. Thank you.’ One cannot pretend to know every guideline related to Wikipedia, as a general user. Although one can trust; that if any editing guidelines had been breached. Wikipedia would have already looked to have deleted the article themselves. If you Chris Neville-Smith created the guidelines to Wikipedia, and you are attempting to enforce these by way of debate. You are owed an apology. However your postings express your position as a similar editor / user. We cannot ignore your tone of ignorance Chris Neville Smith. As you continue to assume that your evaluation of what stands as a reliable news source. Surpasses those of the individuals who bring together corporate news establishments. That enable for articles and sources to be created. Generally the social assumption, is that if a ‘publication’ is entitled ‘News’. That constitutes news. And therefore a reliable source. With regards to the post by RobertMfromLI. Quote ‘I definitely understand wanting to highlight products you've found so helpful... but that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what a personal blog is for. Sorry.’ It is very, highly; understandable that your many hours of surfing and editing. Place you in an unformidable position as advisor and editor. However you have misunderstood the issue in the article as has Chris Neville Smith. The article is not about personal interest, or individual affection to the subject. The article clarifies a natural drinking water product, from England, containing less than 14mg of calcium. Exceptionally low. And rare for this type of product, in this location. So to demonstrate the need for such critical information. ‘If you were to visit a doctor. And the doctor said. You have a medical condition. You must not all costs. Consume drinking water, with a calcium content of over 14mg. Otherwise you will die.’ One would have to have been made aware beforehand where possible. About remedies or products that could prevent their death. It’s for this very reason, that that the content of minerals must be displayed on bottles and products. Internationally, without question. Arguing the notability of such a topic is the entitlement of users of Wikipedia. However what you’re saying is that its better to make use of a product. Without fully knowing the facts. Which many users may disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Global940, first, my apologies, but it was me who initially proposed this article for deletion, not Dmries. Second, it was nothing personal either way. And finally, it is up to you (or whichever editor adds content) to prove notability, which you have not. You can't just claim "hey, this is something that rarely happens, so it's notable" - you need to back that up with links to third party reliable sources, which you have not. I'd be glad to explain that all to you in more detail, on your talk page (or mine even) if you would like. Also, please remember to sign your posts by simply typing  ~  at the end of each post you make. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. One of the "references" is a Wikipedia article (which, incidentally, does not even mention ETC) and the others are advertisements. I really do suggest, Global940, that you look at the general notability guideline so that you have some idea what Wikipedia's notability standard is. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable. I'd also like to point out that User:Global940 is the creator of the article. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. - Whpq (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2011 (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.