Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gut and psychology syndrome


 * 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. and salt. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Gut and psychology syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is a non-notable psuedoscientific theory which has previously been deleted by the community. The cited sources do not address the subject (GAPS) but rather a related diet that the community has also found insufficiently notable for its own article. See also Fringe Theories. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * delete and salt. Everything the nom said.  WP:PROMO as well.  gah. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * delete and salt both capitalizations of the title per WP:FRINGE. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious bollocks, but, more to the point, not notable bollocks. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge somewhere. As pubmed comes up with zero articles not notable for a standalone article. But "science based medicine" discusses. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt quite clearly not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. I was torn on this one. The present article is devoted mostly to countering the claims of the GAPS diet, and I feel it is useful for Wikipedia to have balanced, objective articles on pseudoscience. But only if the pseudoscience is notable and widespread enough — otherwise, the Wiki article might unduly promote a minor theory. Even after reading the prior AfD discussion I was undecided. Then I saw that the article was declined in the draft process and moved to mainspace anyway. Now I am firmly in favor of deletion.


 * Salting is necessary. When Wikipedia has a decent anti-pseudoscience article that is deleted by AfD, someone may create a pro-pseudo article to replace it, and it takes time to come to the attention of objective editors. Salting will prevent the creation of an unbalanced article to replace this one. In other words, the consensus that appears to be building here is not that the article is flawed, but that Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic at all, period.


 * A sentence or two in specific carbohydrate diet is, I think, the most that can be included. Roches (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete A tough case. While the GAPS diet is obvious bullshit (even the illustrious Dr. Weil can't see fit to endorse it), is it notable bullshit? There's little coverage outside the faddish end of the alt-med universe. That's too bad in a way, because people curious about this junk should be able to find reality-based coverage and not just praise from the diet fad echo chamber. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I started this article after reading about GAPS in the widely-read science magazine New Scientist ("The Hemsley effect: why we fall for celebrity food advice"). It said this diet was promoted by the Hemsley sisters, who have a prime-time TV programme in the UK. I think that when bad advice is given by prominent media, Wikipedia should provide information so that people can quickly find out what the truth is. I see no need to waste so much time trying to decide whether an article is sufficiently significant. There are more important things to do. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - a brief mention in the specific carbohydrate diet article would do it. Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a mention there is warranted. But in the event that a consensus develops in favor of it, any mention would need to be worded very carefully in order to comply with WP:FRINGE and particularly PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Natch. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Is there even a citation to the topic at all? All I see is a sentence about what GAPS is proposed to be and then the rest is about a diet built around it. How does anyone know if they need to use the diet if there is no more information than a sentence about what GAPS is? If anything the page should be 'GAPS Diet' and NOT what is currently is. Semmendinger (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2016 (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.