Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAPS Diet


 * 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 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

GAPS Diet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no sources attesting to this subject's notability beyond a number of (good quality) skeptical blogs pointing out it's absurdity. Do we really need an article for every debunked biomedical idea, no mater how obscure it may be? Salimfadhley (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I found some additional (sort of) reliable sources, such as Fox News Channel and the Weston A. Price Foundation.  Admittedly, the latter is written by Campbell-McBride herself, but the Price Foundation does have its own Wikipedia article. It should be noted that if you find a source saying something positive about this diet, it probably won't be reliable simply because it is in all likelihood a quack website like Mercola.com (which products.mercola.com/gaps-diet/  discusses it extensively]). But Joe Mercola is notable, so I think these sources demonstrate notability.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Right now it seems to be an attack piece, so until there is sufficient notable coverage, I think it's better to delete the article.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kegill has rewritten it to restore a balanced NPOV -- or there's an older version I was building consensus around suggested original NPOV version. I assume that with either of these two versions resolving the POV problem, you'd be happy to Keep?Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Additional sources:   Jinkinson   talk to me  02:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would sources need to be MEDRS compliant?  petrarchan47  t  c   03:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I looked up sources & wrote the article, since my brother and others were discussing the diet as a notable trend -- and I was surprised to find that Wikipedia didn't have any reference to it. *When people look up a notable trend on Wikipedia, I believe they should be able to find a factual summary & information on the subject.* I disagree with the "skeptical" agenda sometimes pushed, that anything not agreeing with their POV should be deleted. As for notability: the GAPS diet is circulated in alternative health & autism circles. And 2 days ago, an article in the Daily Telegraph -- the UK's major conservative newspaper. This is NOTABLE and, to be frank, I kind of object to having to defend it with notability _research_ (there are medical studies supported SCD) against what appear to be a skeptic's _assumptions_. No, I'm not a GAPS practitioner myself & have a math/science/ computer science background. Twhitmore.nz (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been in the Telegraph a couple of times; but these are just mentions aren't they? There's not been any sort of in-depth treatment or analysis there. Alexbrn talk 08:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, Alexbrn; they were entire articles about this diet:  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  22:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes - that was the piece I'd seen - but it amounts to not much more than a paragraph asserting that the diet helps, followed by a child's food diary; there's no detail about the diet itself there. Alexbrn talk 02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a whole day's food diary -- for a diet, that pretty much summarizes it! I don't know how much more to-the-point the Telegraph article could be. Ghee? Yes. Butter? Not so much. Butternut squash. Almond butter. Fermented cabbage. etc etc etc.
 * To suggest that a food diary doesn't describe a diet, seems confused & utterly illogical. What is a diet, other than a food diary to be followed daily? We seem to be reading the article with blinders on, looking for something else entirely.
 * And, according to the article "Michael and Helen have seen great improvements in Olivia’s health, behaviour and happiness.". Is it possible these parents may actually be competent & reliable sources, in regards of significant changes ("great improvements") in their own child's demeanour?Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well in this case the diet is not just something that's followed daily, is it? I changes over time, involves other activities (e.g. stool monitoring), and the use of supplements. So we wouldn't get a full/accurate picture from a food diary even it we made the (dangerous) assumption of assuming we could. The telegraph piece lacks any substantive discussion of the diet, and so does not really help establish its notability in my view. Alexbrn talk 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the factual & informative article I wrote appears to have been significantly vandalized by skeptics since I wrote it. Could we please compare the _original_ informative_ article to this horrible vandalized mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GAPS_Diet&oldid=554628502 I am unhappy about this vandalism. One Alexbrn appears to have been particularly active in editing this, and I would like moderator attention on this.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Twitmore.nz, from what I'm observing, there is a manic attempt on Wikipedia to remove or denigrate "alternative" or other-than-alopathic medicine. Unless some editors can defend against this activity, it's better not to have article. When I first saw it, it was three sentences - two were criticisms. After I removed the criticisms, the article was rebuilt so that it was (merely) 50% criticism. It's better to let readers find information about natural forms of healing outside of wiki, at this point. Past requests for moderator attention on this very activity has garnered no response, sorry to say.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's an active thread at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk 08:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete There are zero hits on Pubmed when searching for "GAPS diet" or "Gut and Psychology Syndrome"; these are red flags about the extreme fringe nature of this diet. I should note that sites like Mercola and Weston A Price are fringe sites that are not the type of high quality sources we should be using to build an article around. If the only sites that discuss this extensively are fringe sites and skeptical blogs, this topic is not yet ready for including here. Local news sources/blogs are not by themselves enough to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is research into these diets on PubMed; kindly see the citations in my original version of the article. Note that GAPS is a trademark and trademarks are unlikely to be literally referenced in non-funded research. Your expectation about there being visible research on trademarked treatments, without there being tens of millions in pharmaceutical company funding & expectations of a billion-dollar profit, would appear to be seriously divorced from reality. Research is funded. Non-profitable treatments, no matter how very good they may be, don't get the development dollars -- and these days, only potential blockbusters get funded. Tropical diseases (for suffering Africans) are a prime example of this bias. See Neglected tropical disease research and development.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This could only be notable for its fringe/quack nature, and though it has had some mainstream media attention even this is superficial, and not enough to establish notability. Maybe in years to come it will be back, but for now ... delete. Alexbrn talk 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Assuming that the article can remain balanced. How many of you who have voted either way have actually read the book? I'm guessing the answer is zero. I have (read most of it). I have cleaned up the article and provided scientific context regarding the growing linkage between the brain and the second brain (the gut). When I have a moment later today, I'll pull some of the research/citations out of the book. I also want to see if the claims she is alleged to have made … are actually made in the book. Why I have the book: in a 10 year period, I had periotonitis, a complete hysterectomy and a colon resection. My mother had irritable bowel syndrome. I have several friends with Crohn's disease. --Kegill (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To the person concerned about PUBMED citations - it is rare for a practitioner not associated with a university to have the time/resources to devote to writing grants and doing publishable research. It doesn't make episodic ("physical-science-like") research any less important, particularly when the author cites other researchers. Some of the best work in women's health is being done by practitioners, not university researchers, who synthesize research to develop care protocols for their patients. They then have "anecdotes" about how that theoretical research plays out in real life. --Kegill (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of citations shows there is no coverage whatsoever of this diet in the medical literature. "Evidence" or "data" is not the plural of "anecdote". Yobol (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In many alt-med and fringe medicine cases the lack of mainstream research is often an indicator that a subject is not (or not yet) taken particularly seriously by the medical research community. In these cases Wikipedians should err on the side of caution and not avoid including such content. Too soon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we have tons of alt med articles already; that this particular topic is so fringe that there is no mention in the journal literature is a huge red flag. Yobol (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest Merge with redirect into Specific Carbohydrate Diet that this diet is a variant of... Even with the few news hits don't provide enough meat to make a whole article, at least not yet.  The SCD article will need close monitoring to ensure that the sourcing for biomedical claims meets WP:MEDRS, and reflects the views published in reliable sources in proportion to the emphasis found in those sources.   05:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Alexbrn talk 05:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable quackery. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is health related content; I searched and there is no discussion of this in articles indexed by pubmed. As per WP:MEDRS there are no reliable or notable sources upon which to base an article.Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (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.