Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intuitive eating


 * 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. Consensus is that there are too many WP:OR and WP:MEDRS sourcing problems with this content to allow us to keep it.  Sandstein  07:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Intuitive eating

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utter dreck that has been in Wikipedia since it was created in 2006. It has never been loved but has been filled and then depleted of horseshit fad diet shilling and various academics promoting themselves. I had speedied this and the tag was stripped so now we have to go through this exercise. There are some reviews some reviews but if you look at the them they can be summarized as saying "small shitty studies have been done that we can't learn anything from". It is not worth keeping this. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (redact fix pubmed link; had filter activated but not in search URL, now it is. sorry Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC))
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable as entire books are written about it. The reviews do not say what the nomination claims -- that's a false quotation.  Instead, they say things like "Research on intuitive eating has increased in recent years. Extant research demonstrates substantial and consistent associations between intuitive eating and both lower BMI and better psychological health."  Note also that the nominator removed most of the content from the page before nominating it for deletion, including lots of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What I removed was a huge bolus of bad content added by a student who is part of a class that has generally added bad content to WP articles, and the members of which have been nominating each other's "improved" pages for DYK and then even approving each others' nominations. Blech all around. Your summary of the history, the literature and this page are all incorrect. If you look at the body of the review from which you quote, instead of the abstract (see WP:NOABSTRACT) you will see that it says There is a dearth of research including a broad mix of respondents/participants such that results can be generalised to the larger population. And the next time you strip a speedy nomination you should explain why.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have declined the speedy deletion tag -- this was and is not "blatently promotion" and "in need of a total rewrite" as WP:CSD specifies. In fact I ahve removed the advert tag, as this does not even appear sufficiently promotional to warrant a cleanup tag, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes that DYK thing is a big problem. If you post some diffs (here or on my talk page), I will be glad to help follow up on that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked over the article at DYK and was thinking of reviewing it. I expected to flag it as needing significant work but, as there was so much material, needed more time to go through it. As for the literature review, my quote is quite accurate as a summary of the conclusions.  The point about calling for more research is so common in reviews that it's a cliché.  There's always more to find out and, in this case, they want more studies of other groups besides Caucasian women, who were the focus of most studies considered.  That's not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed it's not a reason to delete, and apologies I wasn't more precise. I meant I was concerned that students were approving one another's DYKs especially on any topic in the vicinity of medicine; that has nothing to do with AfD, it's just a big problem of its own. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The quoted bit is a lazy grab at the abstract and you know this. If you are working competently you pay attention to the evaluation of the evidence. The part i quoted is the most important part in terms of generalizing that conclusion. You are correct that this one sentence is not a reason to delete. I am not going to respond to you further, andrew d.. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec x 3) Hey, so, this is way outside my expertise and I tagged in some projects and categories precisely because I had some concerns when I encountered the entry at DYK and wanted more experienced eyes on. I guess what I'm wondering is, just as a person out in the world, this is an expression I have heard not infrequently and if the studies really aren't good, wouldn't it be worthwhile for encyclopedia readers to find an entry saying that? I'm not ivoting because like I say, this is not my area of expertise so I won't pretend I have a handle on medical notability, but it just seems to me it could be useful to readers for this to be cut back to whatever can or can't be said confidently based on what studies there are (and looks like PubMed lists almost 100 that at least touch on the topic?), and page protect if necessary to keep out future promo, unsubstantiated claims, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Only five of those pubmed hits are reviews. I linked to them in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I think the link might be broken? When I click it, I get 99 hits (or I did yesterday; today 100). Just FYI . Innisfree987 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * yes i saved the wrong URL. in pubmed you can just "filter" by reviews, without having that in the search URL. I have fixed it so the filter is baked in.  Sorry.Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My position is that it is not worth it. Nobody competent has spent any time on this for twelve years and what we have had is embarrassingly bad academic shilling and promotionalism. If you vote !keep you better be ready to put your own time into making this a competent article and to keeping the crap out that keeps getting dumped into this. There is a ton of media and academic hype and it will be a LOT of work to maintain. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has lots of articles about diets such as the grapefruit diet, the morning banana diet, the werewolf diet and many more. Intuitive eating is comparatively sensible; eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise.  We should obviously have pages about this as well as the crank and fad diets.  If the pages are imperfect then they should be improved, not deleted as that's our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood about the significance of the task. In addition to Andrew's remarks about other diet pages and applicable policy, which I tend to agree with, I'm also actually not so sure that deleting would be less work than trimming and protecting the page; if deleted, it will very surely be recreated, and, I think it's quite difficult to make a case to salt a topic on which a valid entry could be written just because it has not been. I'll note, also, that while the entry had been neglected for such a long time, within 24 hours of my tagging in a number of additional projects and categories, three new editors were on the page. The seven-day window of AfD may give us some further indication on whether improvements would continue. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this gone. This is one of those cases where there is a chance that the community will keep this, and I will feel obligated to fix it because people will prance in here and vote keep and then prance away leaving this steaming pile of shit behind. My feeling blackmailed that way is my own deal though; i own that :) Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, I just gotta say, I relate to that last sentence so hard :) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't agree with 's assertion that "eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise" ... "is comparatively sensible." As the article on Hunger (motivational state) makes pretty clear, hunger is a multifactorial beast, with psychological and social components in addition to 'mere' physiological ones. "Eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise" could actually be a really bad piece of medical advice for some people. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 09:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Medical article filled with OR essay-style fluff? Kill it with fire. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Parts are written like an WP:ADVERT, the blog posts of a non-notable "nutritional counsellor" are used extensively, a search on Google Scholar suggests that this is a hobby-horse of a very small group of researchers (particularly a Tracy Tylka), obviously very little interest in making this a balanced article, and the potential for dissemination of poor medical advice. Deletey McDeleteface. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 09:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per and . A rambling piece of OR. No justifiable reason for keeping this in the encyclopedia, and spare me please, of the need to list all the policies/guidelines why it shouldn't be WP:TNT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted by user:Andrew Davidson, the current version of the article is misleading with regard to the scientific support or lack thereof for intuitive eating. The current version has 10 citations and various errors and advertisements whereas the deleted version has over 60 citations (most of which are from peer reviewed journals). The idea that only review articles are acceptable for a psychology topic is untenable as you would then need to delete all wikipedia psychology topics that are less than at least five years old (as there is enough work done to aggregate a review). Arguing that the 30 or so studies on this topic are terrible is essentially saying that you know more about this topic than the editors and reviewers who are scientific experts in this area. Also, this page needs to be recategorized as psychology and not medicine so that the evaluation can be more appropriate given the standards in that field. Also, there should be discussion of whether or not the prior content and 50 additional sources should be deleted (this was a unilateral decision by an editor who knew the student status of the editor). If the deletion is warranted then there should be no worries as the collective wikipedia group of editors will agree with the edit. In summary -- It is important for everyone to be able to evaluate the revised version before voting for deletion and the category should not be medicine.Prof Haeffel (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Prof Haeffel thank for your note. I will disclose for you, since you didn't, that you are the professor for the class I mentioned above, and the person who added the huge bolus of bad content is your student. I am sorry that you don't understand our sourcing requirements for content about health, WP:MEDRS. There are only five reviews in pubmed; and I am not sure how many of those reviews would hold up under the criteria (i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further).  Content about whether diet advice is effective for maintaining or optimizing health, or for weight loss, and whether it is safe, unambiguously falls under MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a note that deletion listings are not univocal--we tag in as many different topics as might draw editors with something useful to say on the subject. It's essentially just a notification system; right now this AfD listed to "medicine" and "food and drink" (and categorized as "organisation, corporation or product"). Anyone can add more as they see fit: WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting (that said--just to head off any possible difficulties--I'll note that in 100-odd AfDs, I don't believe I've ever seen a listing category removed, and doing so without explicit consensus probably would not go over well.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Prof Haeffel was reacting to the deletion sorting.  Well what I said about sourcing  is still true; the studies cited by the student were primary sources (per WP:MEDDEF) and not OK, as are the refs in the article now. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I was only responding to that one aspect--don't want to speak for Prof Haeffel but I believe they were also trying to raise a number of other issues, and delsort was just the only one for which I had something useful (I hope) to add! Will let you and others carry on addressing the rest. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * • Yes, of course I am biased toward my students. Probably as much as you seem to be biased against them (as we've had discussions prior to this). Given the biases, shall we agree to both remove ourselves further from this and let the community decide? I appreciate your rigid enforcement of the MEDRS rules. The problem is that you seem to be holding this article to a standard that is not consistent with similar articles (even in medicine). For example, Exercise is likely one of the most important factors for both physical and mental health, and yet there are citations from Slate magazine and an encyclopedia. If you look at Operant conditioning one of the most important theories in all of psychology, and the basis for most behavior therapies, you see that there are only 5 or so review articles out of 78 citations (and citations include "eurogamer" and random books). Similarly, if you look up meditation (which like dieting has clear implications for health) it appears there are only a handful of review articles (out of 200 citations! of which most are books).  And finally, if you actually look at the main DIETING page you can see that it does not conform to your standards at all (50 citations including a USA Today citation and about 4 review articles). So, it is only fair to nominate the main Dieting page for deletion as well and maybe a whole host of other ones. I found these examples in about 5 minutes. The revised article is at least as good as existing articles in these areas (it has a similar amount of review articles and, unlike other articles, NO non-peer reviewed journal articles.) It is also concerning that you have put yourself in the position of evaluating the review articles ("i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further"). It would seem that if the reviews are published in peer reviewed journals then that job has been done by other experts in that area. Anyhow, I ask that you please consider putting the revision back and allow the community to decide as we both may be biased in this situation.Prof Haeffel (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The community is deciding whether to keep this or not, in this discussion.  Your response has nothing to do with how we operate here nor with this deletion discussion. Please do not continue to abuse your editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To compare the page under discussion to other pages, arguing for similar or different application of policies is a legitimate form of expression at an AfD, and in no way an . Such arguments are sometimes persuasive, but perhaps more often discounted, as is discussed at Other Stuff Exists. It is also legitimate to argue that current policy or practice should change, or an exception be made under WP:IAR such arguments are rarely successful, but sometimes gain traction. The comment above seems rather close to the line of what is acceptable to me. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am going to revert the page to the status at which point it was nominated for deletion. A large amount of content was added including over 50 citations (which somewhat addresses the "over citing of Evans" issue noted below). It was this content (a "bolus of bad content") that apparently motivated the current discussion for deleting the page. Thus, it is unclear why the content was removed prior to nomination for deletion. I assume it will be okay with the individual who nominated the page for deletion to restore that content because it will only help his or her cause given how terrible that content was...and given that it was the reason for deletion in the first place. It would also be useful for discussion and voting to articulate why a secondary article on a theory of dieting is up for deletion while the primary dieting page is not up for deletion. Both appear to suffer from the same problem with citations -- as "being a review in the literature is a minimum requirement" for the cited material. Finally, restoring the new content directly applies to determining if the page meets criteria for TNT. Do the extra citations and content clearly show that nothing is salvageable for this page.Prof Haeffel (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Free (and worse, unsolicited) advice so, you'll be getting what you paid for!, but, since you have taken an interest in this entry, you might consider pursuing what we sometimes call the WP:HEYMANN approach, namely to go ahead and make the changes that would respond to the concerns of the delete ivoters, e.g. about the kinds of sources used. A page improved in the course of AfD often is the easiest way to resolve the debate, and seems especially promising in a case where most participants appear to agree the topic could be notable and the question is more whether there is content worth keeping: WP:AfD is not cleanup but the fact is, anyone who can make it clear in the entry itself that a page adheres to policy will likely have a significant impact on the debate (moreso, I think, than only restoring a version with a large number of citations if they don't meet MEDRS standards; at this point, this AfD has a large number of highly experienced participants who will be attune to things like Citation_overkill). Anyway, WP:VOLUNTEER always applies so there's no obligation; just an option based on my experience of responding to AfD nominations I disagreed with. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to me that this is in fact a notable topic, and I do not find the nominator's expressed reasons for deletion to be other than a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether this is sound medical advice is irrelevant, as we don't give medical advice in any case. Whether this is in fact the sort of topic that falls under WP:MEDRS I am not sure of. But even assuming that it is, that does not affect the notability of the topic. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that the current version is mode closely in compliance with MEDRS than the version with 66 cited sources including 5 review articles., you should be aware that that version was not deleted, but only reverted. It remains in the edit history, and could be restored by any editor, although that should not be done against consensus (See WP:BRD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DESiegel vote as you will but your edit here was bad. The page is horribly promotional for the academics who cooked up the concept and whose work is cited multiple times -- and if you don't believe that academics abuse WP for promotion I have several COIN and SPI threads you can review. You can start with this one, which feels mighty relevant.  Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will agree that Evans is overcited in the current version. I have no need to be told that academic promotion exists on Wikipedia, I have seem much of it myself. I never hinted that such a thing does not occur. Nonetheless, I don't think he article as a whole is promotional in the sense that a cleanup tag is warranted. If this is kept the matter can be debated on the article talk page, or any changes that any editor thinks would improve things can be made, and if need be, discussed. If there is a consensus to delete, then the matter of a tag becomes moot. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere but this article's ain't it. A "rambling piece of OR" sums it up pretty well. No prejudice to recreation if can be done in a standard, encyclopedic manner. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am curious,, would you say the same of this version? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * that is a mini-review stuck into WP, assembling a narrative from primary sources. That is not what we do in WP (we try to teach experts not do this in WP:EXPERT). This is all the worse for doing that with clinical studies. We summarize secondary sources. That is deep in the guts of WP -- here, sources are authoritative, not editors. It is also especially important for health which is why MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community. And within the field of health, psych and social psych have been especially prone to very badly done clinical studies that aren't replicable, as described in Replication crisis.  That diff is not providing the public with content that summarizes accepted knowledge as defined in the field; it is somebody's mini-review/essay. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just can’t help myself in commenting on your note Jytdog. I’m assuming that you are providing that link to the Replication Crisis with a bit of a wink (or that you must get the irony). You use the Replication Crisis page to support your argument for the importance of secondary sources. But, did you look at the references for that page? Now that is an article that needs to be nominated for deletion because of an essay commentary without secondary sources that is summarized by the editors! If you provided this an example of another article that needs to be deleted, then I’d be on board. It has citations from the New Yorker, Chronicles of higher education, editorials from perspectives in psych science, and less than handful of secondary sources (maybe only 1 even). Again, just another example of articles that have problems, and yet, are not singled out for actual deletion. And even with the problems noted for the current article, the question remains if they meet the criteria for deletion of a page or rather the need to revise a page?Prof Haeffel (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * you are making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Wikipedia is full of bad content, and pointing at how shitty other articles are, in the context of discussion of a shitty article, is a newbie, tendentious argument. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unclear why it is strange to question a citation someone is using to support their argument. You are making a point about how secondary references are critical to ensure the validity/veracity of an article; then you cite an article that, according to your own standards, cannot be trusted. Seems important. Anyhow, all of this back and forth and finger pointing/name calling you like to do (newbie, you should know better, etc.) still does not address the main point of whether or not the article meets standards for deletion. The substantive issues seem to have gotten lost in bickering; I believe the article can "speak for itself" and that the community of users will make a good decision. Thanks for the discussion.Prof Haeffel (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says:  and Jytdog  is using it in precisely the way in which it says it should not be used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am using it the way it is commonly used. Do not point at bad content to justify other bad content. Why you are actively promoting a line of argument that would ultimately lead to all of WP being crappy, is very much beyond me - that is what this argument leads to. And I did exactly explain -- I wrote "Wikipedia is full of bad content, and pointing at how shitty other articles are, in the context of discussion of a shitty article, is a newbie, tendentious argument". Do not misrepresent me again.  Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That common use of WP:OSE is a mistake, a misuse, and should be countered every time it is made, by anyone. I do not see that doing so is in any way . It seemed to me (and still does) that your commented incorrectly interpreted the comment by Prof Haeffel to which it was a reply. Prof Haeffel's argument was, if i understand it correctly, that other articles which are not seen generally as "shitty" use sources not in accordance with MEDRS, even though they deal to some extent with medical topics, and that you were pointing to one such article to justify part of your own argument, and that therefore such sourcing has effective consensus. One might disagree with that position, but I don't think it can fairly be described as . DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a pet peeve of yours. Pointing at shitty content to justify the existing of shitty content is indeed a newbie, tendentious argument. Content that is badly sourced is one of the banes of this place and thwarts our mission. The only authority here is sources. Badly sourced content is bad, on a fundamental level.  It is also often harmful or misleading -- promotional or UNDUE or out of sync with what accepted knowledge actually is.  More broadly, what you are doing, DES, is encouraging a teacher who barely understands what we do here, and who has led and intends to keep leading groups of students into WP, and is here arguing badly and tendentiously, in their behavior. That is good for precisely no one. I will not be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and send to Draft until sourcing can be improved. Primary sources need to be trimmed. Whole thing needs to be toned down and made more encyclopedic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I must point out that if this page is to be moved to draft, it cannot be deleted, as attribution must be maintained via the history. I could support a view of Draftify. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I could be into this if there were someone versed in the relevant policy (or interested in learning the policy and willing to seek out, e.g., advice from the Medicine project before moving this back to mainspace) who wanted it userfied to their workspace. However, we've now had some 80 edits to this page without anyone making meaningful improvement to the entry itself beyond the one big cut (...which badly needs still more cutting--info on recruiting patients?!! good god), so I'm increasingly persuaded Jytdog is right to doubt such a person will materialize. I've never ivoted TNT before and I continue to have concerns the page will simply be recreated with the same problems, but at least in that case NPR reviewers would be able to see this deletion discussion...
 * And then not so much a response to you DES, but just to put my thoughts on other comments on the record: I am utterly unpersuaded by the idea that we should keep some unreliable health info because we haven't yet gotten rid of all the unreliable health info we ought to delete. I think this is a clear case where no info is better than shaky info, for the reasons Famousdog points to. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask the wikipedia community for one final clarification about deletion guidelines regarding the current article (as well as future articles). From what I can tell, this article was nominated for deletion by Jytdog because of too many primary citations and a lack of secondary sources (i.e., does not meet MEDRS standards). As he explained: ""We summarize secondary sources. That is deep in the guts of WP -- here, sources are authoritative, not editors. It is also especially important for health which is why MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community.”  This point is not disputed. Now, there must be another implicit or explicit guideline that a newbie such as myself is not aware of. Jytdog, it appears, that you have worked on the meditation article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation), but have not nominated it for deletion. This article also does not meet MEDRS standards. It is based almost entirely on well over a hundred primary sources. So, we have a case of 2 articles, both of which do not MEDRS standards. Both of which have mainly primary sources. One article was nominated for deletion whereas the other article was given help/revisions. I do not bring this up as a case of OtherStuffExists but rather to identify the standard or guideline that determines a decision of revise versus delete. Can anyone please point me to the official wikipedia guideline that would determine, when you have two articles that do not meet MEDRS guidelines, when there should be revision versus deletion. Clearly this decision must not be dependent entirely on MEDRS standards or both would be deleted. Further, according to official guidelines “Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required….even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome…..at any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.”Thank you in advance for helping to identify the guidelines that determine this decision; I will take the answer off air.Prof Haeffel (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you restored the student's edit. That is actually helpful with regard to my nomination - your action, as well as the edit you restored, show how difficult it is to keep this page anything approaching decent, with respect to WP's policies and guidelines.
 * With regard to your again bringing up another article. WP is a volunteer project. There is only so much a person can do in a day. You are again personalizing this instead of dealing with the policy issues here. I have no more to say to you in this discussion. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I should clarify my argument. I’m sorry for doing a poor job explaining it originally. I did not intend to imply that all other poor articles need to be nominated for deletion before it is appropriate to nominate this article for deletion. As many have noted this is untenable and there are time constraints (which seems to come with the implicit assumption that if there were more time, then all those other articles would also be deleted). It is for this exact reason that I tried to find a specific example that removes the confound of time. In the example, time was not needed to search out another bad article. The meditation article was viewed and it was deemed revisable despite having many, if not all, of the same issues as the current one. A regular edit was made, which likely takes a similar amount of time as typing a nominate for deletion. So, "available time" is not a factor explaining the difference. I was hoping to gain insight into what led to the two different decisions as  this could possibly be used to set a new precedent for when, given two articles that do not meet MEDRS standards, to revise or delete. If known, it could be extremely useful and perhaps help generate new guidelines that could help improve the entire encyclopedia.  That said, perhaps its not systematic and it just random and it comes down to some “shitty” articles are acceptable and others aren’t. Was hoping to illuminate either way. Finally, this is an opportunity to help a new editor. It is unclear why her personal status as a student (or mine) was brought up, as this is not a content issue; but now that it is known, might be useful to review this again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers).Prof Haeffel (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, sometimes new editors find the WP:Teahouse useful when other areas of the project feel confounding. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete--Nukeable stuff.And, what all sed above:) ~ Winged Blades Godric 07:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not promotional? What is this, "Through intuitive eating, health selfishness, and body positivity, one can reach one's unique and full health potential without surrendering to society's idea of beauty or hurting themselves physically and emotionally." and "develop self-trust around eating challenging or "forbidden" foods, practice being more mindful at meal times in a safe and supportive environment", and "Hawks claims the underlying philosophies of intuitive eating are thousands of years old and exist in most eastern and some western religions. Intuitive eating is designed to be a "common sense, hunger-based approach to eating," where participants are encouraged to eat when and only when their body tells them it is hungry." and now I'm just quoting the entire article because all of it is junk. Straight out of a self-help book or marketing for a new diet.
 * And the first sentence of MEDRS is "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information." for a reason; bad articles on health related topics aren't acceptable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you all for your feedback on my edits and for your interest in the intuitive eating article at large. In keeping up with this discussion, it has become clear to me that each of you is deeply committed to informing the public using reliable and rigorous scientific evidence, especially when it comes to health, which I truly appreciate. As a new editor hoping to learn from the criticism my edits received prior to their reversion, I have a few questions. Regarding the WP:MEDRS, I understand and respect the guideline that it is not the prerogative of Wikipedia editors but rather scientific experts to assemble a narrative regarding the research on a given topic in their fields. As such, I understand why it is problematic that I have used peer reviewed journal articles rather than literature reviews in my coverage of intuitive eating, now that the topic has been classified within the domain of the medicine project. However, I remain somewhat confused about why my mistake subjected my edits to reversion and the entire article to deletion, when many of the article's studies and findings are also explained in this literature review, for example. Were the citation to be changed, would the article then become more acceptable? The literature review also calls attention to the fact that research on this topic has been primarily cross-sectional, so this citation would support the former "Limitations" section I added as well. Would simply changing citations from research studies to literature reviews demonstrate that the article should not be deleted? Beyond the "letter of the law" regarding MEDRS, I have a few questions about the law's intent. I understand how literature reviews can be used to eliminate the influence of editors' bias, as scientific experts are the ones putting the findings into proper perspective. However, in editing a particular Wikipedia article, don't editors still make implicit decisions about what is worth highlighting, even if they entirely rely on these reviews? Inevitably, we still prioritize some sources at the expense of others. While I fully acknowledge the task of citing every single literature review on a given topic, particularly if broad or prevalent, would be insurmountable, I am left wondering how it is possible for any article not to include some degree of editor bias, even with the best of intentions. This seems like one reason why it is so great that Wikipedia allows for the contributions of so many editors! But if an article is deleted, are we allowing for this progress, or are we bordering on WP:CENSOR? Lastly, I welcome any suggestions for how to make my writing less "essay-style" and more encyclopedic. The countless essays I have written have always included theses statements, personal commentary and original thought to supplement citations, and somewhat elevated language appropriate for an academic setting. Though the current article is not reflective of my own edits, I made a concerted effort to avoid opinionated statements or language, unnecessary verbosity, and overly complicated diction, so it would be very helpful to hear how I can do better next time. Please note that I am not asking these questions for a grade or deadline. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to learn from you. Cgorman4 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks so much for your reply ! To try to give you succinct answers to your various questions:
 * 1. Yes if you trimmed back your version of the entry to only what could be cited to literature reviews (while fully and fairly representing the conclusions of those lit reviews, i.e. not cherrypicking--more below), and made those refs clear, that is the best bet (from what I too have learned in this extended discussion!) for having an impact on the viability of the entry. The leading concern here has been the absence of someone interested in taking on that significant amount of work.
 * 2. Certainly we deal with editor selection bias all the time. We have a lot of policies aimed at managing these issues, like WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT that instruct editors to follow the material as it was presented in the reliable source; if they don't do so (e.g. if they cherrypick the conclusions they like), they're liable to be challenged by others. Questions on how or whether this works effectively are probably best suited to the talk page of the related guideline, rather AfD. What I'd say here is mainly that censorship is generally not going to be compelling argument for inclusion of shaky science (whether at level of a stand-alone entry or content within an entry), for reasons that are baked into the history of how WP sourcing policies developed. I’ll leave a longer description of this on your talk page.
 * 3. I’ll also be glad to give you some style feedback there too (in interests of keeping the AfD discussion focused on its task.)
 * I hope to get to these last two tonight but it might take me a day or two. Thanks in advance for your patience, and again for your reply here. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * CGorman thanks for your notes; what you ask is not appropriate to answer here at AfD; I will respond on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Cgorman4 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2018 (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.