- 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. Secret account 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion by User:RHaworth, prod contested by author. I am therefore nominating it for deletion on AfD. The whole article is pretty much entirely unsourced, does not claim any obvious notability, reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article, and is probably primarily written only to advertise a specific beauty care treatment. DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, this is a treatment I heard of before, and the historical assertations give it some value. Is there another article such as mud bath or alike where we could merge this? Turqoise127 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to add, of course, that article needs a lot of work and wikification...Turqoise127 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everything's covered in Mud wrap, for one. The other side is that this article is horribly biased in the first place, seemingly as if to promote the benefits - this flies in the face of WP:NPOV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC), augmented at 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and start over. There is probably more alternatives than mud wrap, which is itself an over-short and inadequate article, so there should be a possibility of an article here, but I dod not see how the present content is helpful. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 4 November 2009 (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.