Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-Grain Diet (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep.  Majorly   (hot!)  10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No-Grain Diet (second nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, fails WP:N. Cannot locate any reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. The only available sources and Google results are promotional and/or closely related to the diet's publicizer. Without reliable independent secondary sources, the article will always remain in its current promotional/OR state. Prior VfD is here and does not touch on subject of notability. MastCell Talk 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator; fails WP:BK. MastCell Talk 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - only source cited is to the diet promoter's official website, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:N. Also reads like an advert. Delete unless appropriate sources are found by the end of this AfD. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of google hits, published book. The diet seems to have a large following, I found two independent reviews.. Apparently a best seller, there are 13 citations for the book according to Amazon It crealy passes notability tests. There is a published academic review ''Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 119–122, 2004--Salix alba (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google hits are not a criterion. The book has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Of the sources you mention, both "reviews" are on specialty websites which advance minoritarian dietary theories. One is a five-sentence paragraph in a newsletter - hardly "non-trivial". The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a minor, non-MEDLINE-indexed fringe science publication not carried in any medical or general library I've been in, and in any case the book review is not available online, so cannot be used as a verifiable source. The bottom line is that without "multiple, non-trivial, independent" secondary sources (which appear not to exist), we can never write an WP:NPOV encyclopedia article, and the article will always be an advertisement. MastCell Talk 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment let us distinguish notability from verifiability. Notability referes to whether the article should exist, verifiability referes to whether we can back up the cliams in the article. On notability the 13 citations in amazon, the first link provided and the journal review all add weigth to notability. The fact these sources are primarially in alternative health related publications does not detract - there is no mention that the book must have been reviewed in national press. To this you could add 49 amazon reviews (the most I've ever seen) and the fact it reached no 5 on the New York times best seller list. This is clrealy a book of some influance. On verifaibility we probably have enought to verify that our wikipedia page is a true and acurate reflection of the content of the book. What we don't have is anything to prove or disprove the theories mentioned in the book. --Salix alba (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Verifiable sources are required to establish notability. Again, Amazon reviews don't qualify. Plenty of books spend a week at #5 on the NYT bestseller list without warranting an article. The sources of the reviews you mention are not "independent" and don't serve a "general audience". What we don't have is any independent, reliable secondary sources. We can't build a neutral, encyclopedic article from Amazon.com reviews and a couple of brief mentions in venues that are essentially echo chambers for the book's author. MastCell Talk 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I agree with the prev. eds. that the reviews cited are unreliable grounds for notability, But the NYT list is in my opinion sufficient. I would say that if it was at #5 one week it was presumably somewhere on the list before and after. If people buy large enough amounts of junk, the junk is notable. .DGG 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand your point, but the problem is that an NYT bestseller ranking doesn't help us build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article; we need sources to do that. Hence sales figures alone don't satisfy WP:N or WP:BK. MastCell Talk 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per DGG and the #5 presence on NYT's list.--Chaser - T 09:27, 21 April 2007 (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.