- 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 speedy deleted by Orangemike. Sam Walton (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Orthotropics® (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As well as being a mess of an article which appears as nothing more than an advertisement, subject does not appear to be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Neither the article nor Google offers evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Notification of nomination for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry. Bus stop (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is an ad and appears written by the founder. Frmorrison (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Improve writing style. But sources show that “Orthotropics” validly exists. Bus stop (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Which sources? Sam Walton (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- "What if in the process of straightening teeth orthodontists are actually damaging your face? It's a claim which has long been made by English orthodontist John Mews, and for those claims he's been labelled a 'maverick' by others in the industry. But now there are general dentists in New Zealand supporting him and offering his alternative treatment called orthotropics. Those who offer the method claim they too are being ostracised by an outdated industry who aren't making patients aware there are other options than braces to straighten teeth."[1] Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The article is obviously an advert and undue in title and style. Further it appears to have very little encyclopedic content, and the fact that something "exists" is not relevant for WP:GNG. Can anyone find independed secondary sources that demonstrate notability? Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - clear G11, kill it now. ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (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.