Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete This is an utterly non-notable paper, created by who was flagged by  as being connected to the subject in some way (see Sockpuppet investigations/PortionScientist). That it got picked up by a few 'food advice' columnists as the 'food advice of the week' is not evidence of notability in any way. The article is simply a basic 'summary' of each sections of the paper, and is not encyclopedic in the least. Additionally, the original article was published on 1 JUL 2015, and has gained zero citations in any scientific journals. Compare this with our truly notable Category:Biology papers, such as The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance cited well over 3000 times. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I thought there might be something that could be saved here, but on second thoughts, no. The article sounds like it comes out of a women's weekly magazine and even if the tone could be cleaned up, we are no journal dump, especially for non-notable papers like this. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. When I saw the title of this I was expecting a diet book not an academic paper. Individual academic papers are rarely notable and a paper analysing a small survey seems incredibly unlikely to buck the trend. Hardly anything here suggests the paper is notable. That it got a bit of news coverage is not surprising or very significant. Pretty much anything written on the subject of diet will get coverage in the health columns of the newspapers and the wackier the better as far as their editors are concerned. The spin being put on this in the article, and in the press coverage, is very dubious. It may be that people who stick to a small number of foods are fatter but the implication that eating a lot of random stuff makes you thinner is so far away from science that the "implications" section could be called "Dodgy inferences and wishful thinking". The criticism section could be retitled "No shit Sherlock" too. Finally there is the comical description of certain foods as "rare". Pork belly? Rare? Don't common pigs have bellies that get sliced up and sold? Kimchi? Rare? Don't the Koreans eat that with almost every meal the same way us fat westerners shovel down the chips/fries? This is hardly written from a global perspective! In short, this article has provided me a little innocent amusement but it doesn't belong here and it has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (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.