Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The China Study (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The China Study
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not an attack on the topic of the book, there are plenty of credible sources that suggest vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle choice and it may very well be more healthy than a diet containing a small quantity of meat. With that being said there is no indication that this particular book on the subject is at all notable. The entire article is derived from a primary source; there isn't a single review of the book, not a single newspaper article about it. As a result it doesn't appear to meet the criteria for WP:BOOK and should probably be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is just not properly sourced. Amazon.com has the following reviews quoted: (ill just list the sources): The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Dean Ornish, M.D., American Institute for Cancer Research president Marilyn Gentry, John Mackey, CEO, Whole Foods. the study was referred to as the "Grand Prix of epidemiology" by The New York Times. If someone (probably not me right now) can just source these reviews, notability seems clear to me. i agree with how poorly the article is currently sourced. I also dont like how much of the books ideas are reproduced here, and the excessive linking. that can be fixed, and i dont believe the article is unsalvageable, even if its just reduced to a stub.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I may be missing something here, but I have seen this work cited several times, and Google Scholar appears to confirm its notability.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to China Project. Stripping out the coatrack, the non-redundant material can easily be accommodated. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the article may need better structuring and sourcing, it nonetheless discusses a significant study (and on which I happen to be skeptical, for what it's worth). Notability is not an issue. Arjuna (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Still no references. Independent notability of the book still not confirmed.  Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (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.