Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar addiction

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sugar addiction
This is barely a stub, and seems to be more baseless speculation than anything encylopedic. LavosBacons 02:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Crackpot. Delete. humblefool&reg; 02:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. You didn't try a Google search did you? There is so much stuff out there on sugar addiction. I have added some references, and will be expanding the article. Granted, it appears to be a popular rather than a scientific term, but it is no less notable for that. GeorgeStepanek\talk  02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. POV problems, a questionable theory, but those are not reasons to delete. - RedWordSmith 02:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable theory/phenomenon. Kappa 04:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but NPOV by explaining the popular vs. scientific distinction and attributing the unsupported claims. Gazpacho 06:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Whether or not it's a real phenomenon, it's at least a popular idea. Szyslak 07:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup.Capitalistroadster 07:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Google says: 21,500 hits.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 10:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or improve substantially. A decent reference to a scientific paper for a start. One of the links is direct to a for profit (self hypnosis) site. GDL 1 Feb 2005
 * Keep; cleanup and improve as necessary. Samaritan 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. VfD is not a cleanup tool.  GRider\talk 22:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable - passes Google test, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in present form, as revised by GeorgeStepanek\talk . It's an OK article on an OK topic. It could certainly use expansion, and I suspect it's still at little out-of-neutral, but it's OK. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, still needs a little work. ral315 22:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.