Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophthalmologist William H. Bates - Natural Vision Improvement History

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 delete G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmologist William H. Bates - Natural Vision Improvement History

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a speedy for promotion, feeling that discussion was needed. There is already an article on Bates at William Bates (physician), but this may cover different material. Peridon (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

I am trying to create a page that covers the entire and TRUE history of Dr. Bates, his work and the many teachers he trained and teachers they trained to present date. This cannot be done on the other Bates pages due to people that control it; people that want to hide Dr. Bates method. I have a lot more history, images I would like to update; images from the 1918 book, 1920 book, public domain press photos and photos of Dr. Bates magazine. Many articles in antique print showing how he cured children's eyesight without glasses.

Would also like to add a history of how the method was and still is being corrupted by false teachers, thus giving the public a wrong impression of Dr. Bates work. And place a list of methods some honest eye doctors are using which are beneficial, derived from Dr. Bates work.

Please sign talk page and discussion page posts with ~~~~ which puts your sig and the time stamp on. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole thing looks like a cut-and-paste job, either from WP:OR or an unknown source. There is personal commentary at the end, and both that and the comments above look very POV, in fact the comment above is basically a rant. Despite

Peridon's kindness in bringing it here, it needs to go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Speedily even. POV fork of William Bates (physician) as well as being a massive copyright violation: [1]. If nobody G12's it shortly, I will prune the direct copied stuff. Crow^Caw 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material copied from one page of the source website, which stated the content was free to distribute but not to sell, which is not compatible with our license. After that, the remaining material matched another page on the same web site, which stated it was Public Domain, so I left that content there, though we now have conflicting claims of copyright on that site. Crow^Caw 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We also have Bates method, which discusses Bates's ideas in excruciating detail. But this should really be speedied because it is such an extensive copyvio. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (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.