Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roni DeLuz


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Roni DeLuz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Sources in article are Youtube videos of the subject in media appearances, a list to a book publisher's authors, and a broken link to a book review in a magazine. The subject has appeared in some news sources found through a Google search, but is not covered in depth, but rather her business and juice detoxes are covered:  Delta13C (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  10:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  10:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam easily only found passing mentions, hardly much for a better article. Draft and userfy if needed though, SwisterTwister   talk  19:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails regular author rules. Per ONEEVENT if book somehow manages to be notable, redirect to an article solely on that. DreamGuy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Has a NY Times bestseller, passes GNG, I'm finding significant coverage going back to 2008 which I've been adding to the article. I hope this article isn't up for deletion because she's a "diet guru." While I think that stuff is crap, I am able to be partial enough to see she passes GNG at the least. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, being an author of a book on a bestseller list does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR in order to meet notability. The Toronto Star article is a book review and does not cover the authors of the book in depth. The source from Black Enterprise  is also a book review, but it seems to be more of a promotional junket rather than a piece about her. Let me be clear, this is a person who went to a diploma-mill school, Clayton College of Natural Health, from where she got an ND and PhD and wrote a book about detoxing and rapidly losing weight which made the New York Times Bestseller list for three weeks in 2007. She has no other marks of notability. Delta13C (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I disagree with you. She passes GNG in my opinion. I'm not saying she's a brain surgeon, I just think she passes GNG. I think detox diets and naturopathic medicines are woo, but I'm not going to say she doesn't pass GNG because of that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Agree with nominator that a book appearing on NY Times bestseller list does not contribute to WP:AUTHOR. It does, however, contribute to notability of the book. I have also found these which may be deemed okay for the book's notability:  - Washington Post a review of 2008, unfortunately need to purchase so can't say if and in-depth review or not (if link doesn't work just go into Washington post site, their archives and search book title, it is hit no. 9),  - Cape Cod Times short review (but not just a trivial listing:))- "takes readers on a journey to understand foods and the ways we process them, using the life experiences of real people to illustrate changes we all can make for better health.",  - What Is a Detox Diet? in Fitness magazine (as this is a review of the actual diet at the 'Vinyard' it maybe useable for either DeLuz or book?) - "FITNESS says: Avoid it. Three weeks with no solid food is "too extreme," says Detroyer. Plus, "nobody needs enemas or colonics. There is absolutely no research to support [their benefits], and I think it could be dangerous. It could dehydrate you if you are not adequately replacing lost fluids."", and  - Toronto Star in-depth(?) review (already in article) - "Although DeLuz recommends a 21-day detox, the plan can be modified into a seven-day cleanse or a two-day cleanse. .. Helene Charlebois, a registered dietitian based in Ottawa, says the Martha's Vineyard plan is not meant for – and shouldn't be tried by – people new to detox diets. .. OUR VERDICT: If you regularly rely on a cleanse or detox, you can probably make your way through this one, too. But if a detox is new territory for you, it might be best to stay away or, at least, get professional help.", also worldcat shows book is in 600 libraries(I know this can't be used for notability but it is an indicator?...) ps. I am also concerned that her main claim to fame is a book which she co-authored with two other people, so an article on the book may be the way to go. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per . Agree that this diet stuff sounds dubious, but there are sources in respected publications.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) One other thing: the article needs a detox.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete since the sources are almost exclusively promotional and non-independent. That results in an overly promotional article that gives false parity to nonsense and science. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Noone's linking to any coverage of him independent of his diet, and a mere google search is poor evidence. Appears to be one of a thousand fad diets that get temporary coverage then go away - WP:ONEEVENT applies. For that matter, the most recent reprint of the diet book I can find is 2010, so the lasting notability of the diet itself is questionable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - While there is an argument for the notability of the book, that doesn't hold for this author. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:40, 12 December 2015 (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.