Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature's 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Non-admin closure. Enviroboy TalkCs 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nature&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An anonymous editor nominated this article on August 10th. I'm completing the nomination. The editor's rationale follows: "The article has been tagged as Advertising since March 2008. It was proposed as G11 in June, said proposal apparently failing in the history.  This article still reads as self-promoting spam, and there is a vague assertion of corporate notability but it doesn't pass a smell test to me.  Specifically it does not pass WP:CORP, specifically that the company has not has significant coverage in secondary sources.  No mention of corporate size or other reasons that it is notable except for local articles.  The bulk of the article reads like advertising about the company's products. Time to nominate it for deletion.  I've placed the main tag, but cannot complete the nomination.  98.215.48.213 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" -- Enviroboy TalkCs 05:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article was recently trimmed by another editor; much of the advertising alluded to above was removed. Enviroboy TalkCs 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: This article serves only to increase sales of their product. It does not serve the goals of wikipedia in any way. 207.112.52.135 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wizardman  03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there any chance of this article being written better, if someone actually wanted to take the time to improve it? Then again, if it has had the spam tag on it since March, it probably won't be improved  C t j f 8 3 Talk 03:37, 20 August 2008 (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.