Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewilding the gut


 * 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 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewilding the gut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google search shows that this phrase is found in one book, and as such does not satisfy general notability. Promotional intent of an article is not taken into account in deleting, and this article appears to be promotional, but notability is considered and is missing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per NEO, unless there's some significant usage somewhere, but I'm not seeing it. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A really interesting phrase, I'd guess that it will gain some use as time goes on. But I don't see that the notability of the phrase is supported by any of the citations given. I could find the phrase used by Sonnenberg et al in their 2014 paper published in Cell Metabolism on "Starving our Microbial Self" and once by the same authors in "Diet-induced extinction in the gut microbiota compounds over generations" that was published in January 2016 in Nature . Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - only used once ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Provisionally delete. All the comments above are about whether the expression "rewilding the gut" has sufficient use, but that is not really the right question to consider. That expression is evidently a neologism which has had far too little coverage to in itself justify an article, but it is a mistake to assess this deletion nomination on the basis of whether that expression is notable: we should assess it on the basis of whether the concept referred to by that expression is notable. (We have an article Julius Caesar because the man referred to by that name is notable, not because the name itself is notable.) In other words, the right question is not "Does the expression 'Rewilding the gut' have widespread coverage?", but "Does the process of process re-introducing lost and introducing new micro-organisms into people's guts have widespread coverage?" The best I can say about that is that (1) the article at present and its references don't provide evidence that it does, and (2) I have not been able to find evidence that it does anywhere else. Most of the references, while covering various issues relating to loss of gut micro-organisms, do not actually mention the idea of adding back lost micro-organisms. At best, the article "The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update" by H Okada, C Kuhn, H Feillet, and J-F Bach, briefly mentions the idea, but gives no substantial coverage of it. There is therefore no evidence that the concept satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I am marking my "delete" as provisional, as it is possible that there may be substantial coverage, which is not included in the article's references and which have not been found in searches because they are referred to under other names, not "rewilding". If there is significant coverage, I hope it can be found before this discussion is closed, but if there isn't then the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and the article should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: fecal microbiota transplant might be at least an example of "rewilding the gut". --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and . It's a notable topic, just not called this weasel term. Yes, microbial repopulation, fecal microbiota transplant, and the hygiene hypothesis are real. This concept itself is fringey, although gaining some scientific acceptance. However, this is not the crap (pardon the pun) we want on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, superseding my "provisionally delete" above. This essentially duplicates the topic of the article Fecal microbiota transplant, and actually could be speedily deleted for that reason, in my opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2017 (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.