Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement

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. Sandstein (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement

POV Fork of Bates method. The creator Seeyou (talk · contribs) has a problem with the consensus on Bates method. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Seeyou seems to think creating a POV fork is a good way to work around a consensus that has been reached through arbitration, no less. Salt if needed. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, ArbCom rejected the Bates Method case as a content dispute. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To main Bates method. It is a proper name of it and could theoretically be a search term, but it is clearly a POV-fork as its own article. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork and a typo to boot. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me why ? I really do not understand ? Seeyou (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in order to circumvent consensus on Bates method, which is the textbook definition of a POV fork. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. Edward321 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt per Blanchardb RogueNinja_talk 09:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to the "Modern Natural Vision Improvement movement" or the "Janet Goodrich method" or something like that. Also remove POV that it is superior to the original Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes I agree that Bates may have modified his method and title used over time, but this is better treated in Bates method. --Salix alba (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeyou is attempting to circumvent consensus by creating a rival to the Bates method article. Famousdog (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.