Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow-Carb Diet


 * 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 merge to The 4-Hour Body. (and/or Low-glycemic diet). Most arguments revolve around being basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of both of those, so I rounded to Merge per that guideline. It looks like the argument is that the science behind it is Low-glycemic diet; notability/critical examination cited is actually of The 4-Hour Body and/or Low-glycemic diets as a whole; the rest WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Incidentally I noticed the proper name matches the name of the author's blog, which gives further weight to the arguments of the article being largely promotional in nature. slakr \ talk / 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Slow-Carb Diet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no secondary sources used except to make OR claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep there are 227,000 results on Google for "Slow-Carb Diet" so I think this is notable enough to have an article. Yes, it needs more and better sources. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 361,000 hits on google for "Mjolnir Pants". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
 * True with a margin of error of 360675 ;-) Pengliujian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes there are. I never said I included the quotes. I didn't think I needed to to make my point. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming the issue here is notability, then I don't think there is any debate. The 4-Hour Body (the book that launched the diet) was in the NYT bestseller list for three weeks and was in Amazon's top five for two months. The diet has also spawned a slew of websites and blogs. A more interesting question is whether the diet as such deserves a whole article, or whether it should be moved to The_4-Hour_Body or Low-glycemic_diet.Pengliujian (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Websites and blogs?! We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - so we'd be looking for coverage in nutrition text books, secondary works in journal articles, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment below about journal articles - journals tend to use the term "low glycemix index" rather than "slow carb", though the two are used interchangeably, which is another reason why I have suggested moving this to Low-glycemic_diet. For non-academic sources (which are relevant here, since we are discussing a popular diet, not a trend in nutritional science) there are plenty of popular books advocating/explaining the diet, providing recipes etc. I don't have the time to investigate them or the money to buy them, though. Please remember that I am not the original author of this page; I just cleaned it up and added some missing information (the sections on Scientific Support, Criticisms and Variations). Pengliujian (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Synthesis is prohibited by policy. If sources don't state or imply things specifically about the "Slow Carb Diet" you cannot take it upon yourself to do so on Wikipedia's behalf, and make a WP:COATRACK. This is fairly basic stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what I was talking about. I am saying that this article should form a section in Low-glycemic_diet because (a) the slow-carb diet is a type of low GI diet; (b) the literature uses the terms "slow carb" and "low GI" interchangeably. Generally speaking, scientific/medical journals say "low glycemic index carbohydrates" and more popular sources say "slow carb", but I've seen both terms appear as key words in the same journal article. If you put sources which refer to "low GI" in the slow-carb article, then it would indeed look like synthesis to anyone who wasn't familiar with the topic. (You also have potential confusion between "a slow-carb diet", which refers to any low GI diet, and "the slow-carb diet", which generally refers to Ferriss's version of it. Again this would be cleared up by making this a section inLow-glycemic_diet.) Pengliujian (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * delete entirely promotional and sourced almost entirely from the book in which the diet is proposed; would need to be completely rewritten to be a WP article, and there are insufficient independent, reliable, secondary sources with which to do that - this fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about the need for secondary sources. The problem is, as I state in the article, that there are no controlled studies of the Slow-Carb diet, and I don't want to include low-quality sources. There's a ton of anecdotal stuff, but I don't think that is worth including. What I can do is cite some of the sources that Ferriss himself cites, but that will take some time. Pengliujian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, doing that in WP would be WP:SYN. Ferriss can do that; you cannot as a WP editor.  We summarize secondary sources here - to meet WP:Golden rule there needs to multiple, independent sources with substantial discussion of the diet.  Where are they?  If you cannot find them either, please stop arguing.  Thx  Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I take the point, but I don't think it would be WP:SYN if it's stated along the lines of "Ferriss cites X to support Y." OTOH, it would not then constitute an independent source, which is why I didn't originally do this and just stated "Although The 4-Hour Body contains copious references to the scientific/medical literature, no controlled, peer-reviewed study of the slow-carb diet as such exists to date." As I said, I can provide hundreds of sources from blogs, diet magazines etc., but I was trying to restrict myself to scientific literature and publications with a very wide circulation like WebMD. (I also found Fox News, but didn't want to discredit the article ;-))The point is that the article is not making any claims about the efficacy of the diet (nor should it), but simply describes it, so there is no need for sources outside the original author, except in the sections "Scientific Support" and "Criticisms". (In fact, I replaced some secondary sources with references to the primary sources, since in that case, the latter are more authoritative). Anyway, I've found a few more usable sources (e.g., Mayo Clinic) and will add later today. Pengliujian (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't use the Mayo clinic for health claims (it's not a WP:MEDRS). A single word mention hardly counts as substantial coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why it's in the Criticisms section, not the Scientific Support section. Pengliujian (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Terrible puff-piece on a non-notable diet. At most a mention in The 4-Hour Body may be due. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The article is purely descriptive and does not advocate the diet. Pengliujian (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would this condemnation of the article have anything to do with my recent comments in Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques by any chance? I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to try to have someone's contributions deleted because they disagreed with you on a talk page. Pengliujian (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When an editor makes problematic edits on one fringe topic, it's natural to check if there is a wider problematic pattern - this led me to this (problem) article. As it happens, I edit on fad diet topics a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Pengliujian (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Move . Merge Since the slow-carb diet is a type of low GI diet, it might be better to condense and move this to Low-glycemic_diet, except for the parts which deal with the reception of the book, which should go to The 4-Hour Body, and some parts which can be safely lost (e.g., the recipes section). The dearth of high-quality secondary sources referred to above is largely because any serious assessment of this type of diet uses the term "low GI" rather than "Slow Carb". Pengliujian (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked this above, and you didn't answer. To have any content about this in WP, much less a whole article, we need independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss it. As the WP page of the author of this diet notes, the guy is a relentless self-promoter.  So I ask you again - please provide three such sources about this diet.  High quality, independent, secondary sources.  What are they?  Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My point - to labour it somewhat - is that there are plenty of high quality sources discussing low GI diets; this is a popular low GI diet; therefore, it should be a section in the Low-glycemic_diet article. In the literature - and the industry - where "slow carb" or "slow carbohydrate" is used, it is synonymous with "low GI". (See, for example, Peters et al. (2011) "Effect of carbohydrate digestibility on appetite and its relationship to postprandial blood glucose and insulin levels"; Mitchell (2008) "The glycemic index concept in action"; Hamm (2009) Die richtige Ernährung für Sportler.) We should remember that Ferriss did not invent the slow carb concept or term; he simply tweaked and popularised it, something that I tried to make plainer with my last edit. Pengliujian (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Even here you are promoting this by calling it a "popular diet" and I ask you a direct question and you offer me sloppy garbage about the general concept instead of this particular diet. I am done asking for independent, reliable sources about this diet  - there clearly are none and you clearly can produce none.  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this deletion discussion, btw. (pls read WP:BLUDGEON if you have never have)  Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also see Etiquette. Pengliujian (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is now impossible to improve the page because Alexbrn is reverting changes. I have tried to address the criticisms that it is promotional by only focusing on Ferriss's diet; however, any attempt to include information on slow carb diets in general (i.e., other than Ferriss's) are reverted. Pengliujian (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The normal rules of editing are not suspended because the article is at AfD. Adding completely unsourced notions, as you did here is a non-no; doing it to try and skew the AfD takes us into disruptive territory. Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually trying to be helpful by responding to your pointing out (on the talk page) the fact that the cheat day is not a part of all low GI diets. The disruption is all on your part. You have scheduled an article for deletion then sabotage any attempt to improve it. Pengliujian (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We have policies like WP:NOR and WP:V which are not optional. Adding dubious material in contravention of them does not improve the article, it makes it even worse. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was you that pointed out that a cheat day was not part of most low GI diets: "Are you seriously proposing that when researchers write about low GI diets, they have in mind that the subject is interchangeable with a trademarked fad diet with its gimmicky cheat days &c. ?!" This is not OR; it is disambiguation, since otherwise the reader might not realise that a cheat day is - as you say - peculiar to this particular diet (the idea seems to be borrowed from cyclic ketogenic diets, but that's another story). Still, I'm done with trying to be helpful, since you are determined to have the article deleted come what may. Pengliujian (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're getting awefully personal for a namespace that admins regularly watch. I suggest you take it down a notch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 18 March 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.