Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spa bath


 * 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. And redirect to Spa then.  Sandstein  18:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Spa bath

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

WP:COATRACK article created entirely as vehicle for original research analysis that mines primary sources with the aim of proving some kinds of Galvano-spa-bath are toxic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: has added a reference to a newly-published paper, which reduces the original research angle. However, it still leaves the whole topic of spa baths a coatrack for what appears to be exposition of the contents of one paper. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum - May as well reference WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Spa. Per above, redirect because people may actually search for this term. D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete to remove the (egregious) original research/synthesis stuff. Then recreate it as a clean redirect to Spa.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — maybe we should disambiguate. When I first saw the title, I thought we were giving these Spas baths :) MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, as a side issue, there's distinct sock activity around this dissertation. posted very similar stuff to Talk:Aqua Detox - which it's still cluttering up (WP:MFD?) - and has conversation with several other SPAs,,  and , who have remarkably similar English and typography. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur - this looks very socky - see the post immediately below for another example. Time to report? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact the article is so close in content to Zierer, Otto, 2008, "Galvano-Spa-Bath and Health Risks Due to Incorporation of Chromium, Nickel, and Platinum Released from Electrodes", The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2008, Vol. 14, No. 4: 349-350 that COI looks on the table too. And WP:NPA - see the repeated allegation that "deletors" want it removed because of commercial interests. . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * COI, or copyvio? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno. It's subscription-only access see here; going by the intro, it looks like shared author(s) expounding the same research. I notice it isn't even a paper, just a letter to the editor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - activities around spa bath are not surprising because of economic interests of "deletors". Galvano-spa-bath is a name used in alternative therapies and people might search for this in wiki.Mikoyoxa (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Our economic interests? What on earth might you be talking about? If this is about Galvano-spa-baths, why is it under the title Spa Baths? If you can establish WP:N for these Galvano-spa-baths, I would then suggest a Move. D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:26, 8 November 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.