Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight management


 * 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   speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. COI and COATRACK issues can be solved by editting. We don't delete notable topics simply because they have a point of view. This article doesn't have a snowballs chance of being deleted. v/r - TP 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Weight management

 * – ( View AfD View log )

See WP:NOT -- we're not an advice column. The entire article reeks of WP:COI and seems to be a WP:COATRACK. Also has strong POV opinions like " Weight management does not include FAD diets that promote quick, temporary weight loss" or "is a long-term approach to a healthy lifestyle". There are a lot of weight management companies that do use fads. This article supposedly has a lot of references, but combines them in a manner that is strongly reminiscent of WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not sure this article can be saved. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 07:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is obviously "real", at least in the sense that reliable sources use the term --- even if, in my opinion, all of this is mostly a testament to US body-image neurosis.  It fetches almost 40,000 Scholar hits. (!!!)  The officious tone and POV of the article is probably just the officious tone and POV of the sources rubbing off; we are, after all, dealing with people who want to regulate what you eat and drink for failing to conform to their ideals.  The how-to issues and POV tone can all be fixed by editing, even if that leaves only a stub here, but an article on the subject is probably necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should this article really exist when we have management of obesity? Notice how much more medical and scientific that second article is. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 15:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different issue, of course. As noted, this title brings forth 39,200 Scholar hits; "management of obesity" 12,500, and "obesity management" under 6,000.  I'd defer to 'experts' on whether "weight management" and "management of obesity" are separate concepts that could support separate articles, even if the world would be a happier place if nobody used either phrase. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the option of merging the two related articles. Weight management is not exactly the same thing as management of obesity, since healthy-weight and under-weight people also need to manage their weight.  Also, managing obesity could involve more than efforts to change the person's weight, e.g., interventions to keep the obese person mobile.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to management of obesity, or perhaps reverse merge it. Looking at references to "weight management" shows that, in practice, it applies mainly to obesity; there is very little discussion of dealing with being underweight (excepting perhaps eating disorders, which are coupled with obesity anyway). Mangoe (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article seems to need additional references that discuss the topic "weight management" specifically, rather than using the term in the context of other information. Merging data to the management of obesity article wouldn't be appropriate, because weight management and management of obesity are entirely different concepts. For example, people that manage their weight are not necessarily obese. There are many book references in the article that appear to verify content in the article, although I haven't gone to the library at this point to research all of them, because I just read the article. Perhaps more internet-available references from reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail would serve to establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a few books to a new further reading section in the article:
 * Brownell, Kelly (January 2004.) "The Learn Program for Weight Management." 10th edition. Amer Health Pub Company. ISBN 1878513419
 * Dalton, Sharron (1997.) "Overweight and weight management: the health professional's guide." Aspen Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0834206366
 * Laliberte, Michele; Taylor, Valerie; McCabe, Randi E. (2009.) "Cognitive Behavioral Workbook for Weight Management: A Step-by-Step Program." New Harbinger Publications, Inc. ISBN 1572246251
 * These appear to be directly about the topic of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep List referenced ways found in many sources for managing your weight. This isn't just for people suffering from obesity, so its a separate notable topic than the other one.  Many women are unfortunately obsessed with managing their weight, without being anywhere near obese.   D r e a m Focus  12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of high-quality sources are available through Google Scholar, so it looks like this article has a lot of potential. This study looks interesting, as does this one. Note that Weight Management is sometimes discussed in terms of underweight people as well:. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. These pages aren't for article cleanup, and the nom's concerns are just those.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simple sensible suggestions - some slightly debateable, but referenced well. Searchertoo (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2011 (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.