Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottomless Bowls Study


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bottomless Bowls Study

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Industrial waste dumped into WP - this is what an academic lab marketing itself looks like. Not to mention that this makes claims about health and there is not a MEDRS ref in sight. Lots of hard selling about how great the lab is tho.

See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. And please do see the article about the head of the lab, Brian Wansink and how it came out in the last year that the lab p hacked their data and then framed the titles and bits of the abstract so they would be media circus ready. And had six papers retracted and 14 corrections when the scholarly community caught wind of it. This page and several others are blatant abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You may have actually made a case for keep here: if this study, which was widely cited across popular media and is frequently used as a diet "factoid" is in fact an egregious incident of academic fraud, then it's much more notable than simply being one of many psychological studies that have received media coverage. Please put information about this shady behavior into the article itself. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I am deeply troubled by the allegations arising about this body of work, this particular study -- whether accurate or not -- has been widely covered in popular media eg, diet books eg , as well as academic sources eg and several sources available via JSTOR . The original publisher Wiley claims it has 250 citations, Google Scholar gives it 574. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - this study is discussed a bit at Brian_Wansink, and I have added the guardian ref there. This page does not need to exist. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note Articles_for_deletion/Bottomless_Soup_Bowl_Study previously closed as delete. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The Guardian article confirms the data results are suspect. scope_creep (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and propose deletion of the Wansink as a human. Natureium (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brian Wansink. I don't have a preference for whether it is deleted first and then redirected or just redirected.  I think the study got enough media coverage to be a plausible search term and the topic is mentioned in the Wansink article, so we should definitely redirect our readers there.  Peacock (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - the experiment has become widely known, and in this November 2016 Atlantic article, is used by a researcher as a way to describe social media addiction.[]. Coupled with the NY Times coverage already in the article, we have multiple reputable sources calling the study famous, including Vox,[] The New Yorker[] and the Chronicle of Higher Education[]. While Wansink is facing scrutiny into some of his results, as far as I can see, this one isn't among his studies that were questioned and/or retracted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is pure abuse of WP. That is all it is.  It already has all the WEIGHT WP needs to give it, in the Wansink article. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was almost with you on the redirect and merge, but that was before I found the other sources I listed that mention the experiment. The brief Atlantic mention doesn't even include Wansink, from which you can infer that the experiment is as well known as he is. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * People referring to this experiment in the media is the result of Wansinks's saavy self-promotion. Whatever, a sucker is born every minute. your stance here is way out of step with the developing consensus in any case. This industrial waste dumped into WP is not going to stay. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * However the coverage was generated, the fact that it exists demonstrates notability, meeting WP:GNG. I don't think a keep vote is way out of step with consensus - after all, I'm the second keep, one delete appears to be based on a faulty premise (that this study is tainted), the other deletes seem to touch on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, while the redirect acknowledges the quantity of search results, and as such could be qualified as a weak keep. To answer the question below, I think the closer read Audiovideodiscoo's comment and decided to get more feedback. I'm glad they did. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Our policies and guidelines are not a suicide pact. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Why was this relisted when all but one person voted to delete? Natureium (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * got me. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- A clear case. In addition to the NYT article already used as a source, there's a lot of discussion of this in books.  Just e.g., , , , and so on.  If the results of the study are suspect, so what?  There should be sources on that and it should be discussed in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What it means is if the study is suspect, then it's potentially false, meaning it is fraud NOT a study, meaning he is not a scientist, he is a frauster and wouldn't qualify him for an article in Wikipedia, and potentially calls into questions all his other research, that also have articles on Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just something you made up. Plenty of frauds are notable enough for a WP article.  Why don't you bring Piltdown Man to AfD if your theories about deletion are correct, or anything else in Category:Hoaxes in science? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is Buzzfeed article about it. The Inside Story Of How An Ivy League Food Scientist Turned Shoddy Data Into Viral Studies It is a fake study and it needs to go. The only reason it is supposedly famous was because of the faked data, based on false premise. It needs to go. scope_creep (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging this up, except a careful reading reveals that this article doesn't mention the bowl experiment. It does further support his notability, as painful as that is for some as it likely also is with Uri Geller. If this experiment is eventually discredited, I'd support a merge and redirect.  Right now we're not there yet. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The investigation seems to be in progress at the moment. I suggest that even though the article doesn't mention the bowls experiment it doesn't preclude it, and it is likely the case that if the scientist did falsify one experiment, it is probable that he falsified them all to some extent. What is the phrase about being famous being the best narcotic. And the bowl experiment was one of the earliest. The The Wansink Dossier: An Overview seems to suggest that notability is not clear cut, and what notability there is, as value, is based on past work, so when that work is called into question, so is the reason for his being famous. Six papers of his have had to be retracted: Retraction Watch Database. The more I look at it, I more I think it is not worth an article. scope_creep (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, it was the Coin team that surfaced these Dossiers. scope_creep (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's a lot of smoke and it sure looks suspicious, but until it's definitively proven, it's WP:OR. And even then, with the media coverage, it's notable, if just for being fraudulent and fooling people. It's a Catch-22. I think you'll have a harder time AfDing his article for this reason, but you can always give it a shot. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.