Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang J. Lutz


 * 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wolfgang J. Lutz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Much of the content on the article is unsourced, the other sources is his own book. Only one reliable reference exists on the internet for this person an obituary piece in The Guardian. There is a serious lack of reliable sources. It seems to fail WP:GNG Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep We cannot just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~  Mellis  ( talk ) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mellis has posted the same verbiage for numerous AfDs now, even though the articles are proposed for reasons other than any viewpoint. Now that's absurd. Ifnord (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete because of violations of nOT ADVOCACY as well as notability .The article as it stands is essentially pure advocacy, which is a sufficient reason for deletion--I would even consider G11 here., as I would for any bio containing the phrase "His wide-ranging and penetrating gaze".   The clinical statements do not include any MEDRS references.  He doesn't meet WP:PROF, for his one published paper is in Medical Hypotheses, a journal notorious for publishing wild speculations and pseudoscience (the a WP article avoids giving the name of the journal) ; the clinical trial mentioned is of someone else's hypothesis, which the article without a RS claims to be similar; he does not meet WP:AUTHOR, for his most widely-read book is self-published (this WP article avoids saying that)..  Based on the Guardian obit, it might br possible  be possible to justify an article by GNG, but if so it would have to be so much a different article that it would need to start over.   DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Sadly this article was advertised on twitter, so there is a meat-puppet problem. Low-carb advocates are now adding original research to the article, (check the talk-page). MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion has already happened, so why are we reinventing the wheel? I have added a section on independent confirmation of his work to the article, as replication is key to scientific validation. Anarchie76 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the two references you added, one is to a 1975 laboratory study of serum insulin determination in prediabetes, without mentioning him, and with no significant references to the paper by him or others associated with his work, the other to a pilot study of a diet whose main features were gluten-free & avoiding dairy.--this is not the same as his, and he is not mentioned in the paper Not only do these not confirm, but they are not even relevant.  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At the time of the previous


 * Delete I don't think an obit in the Guardian is enough to meet GNG. Both of the biographies about him (My life without bread, Uncle Wolfi's Secret) are self-published (or rather, published by the same publishing house, which has published nothing else), written by a close friend of his, and have not been reviewed or mentioned in any sources that I can find - so no independent secondary coverage aside from the obit. Note also that the German wiki article on him (Wolfgang Lutz (Arzt)), referred to in the 2016 deletion discussion itself appears to have been deleted .  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was not deleted, it was moved to here; the only source in the German article is the Guardian obit. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG with a single guardian source. The article is full of original research and if someone can compile more significant sources they could remake the page later.  Denied Club ❯❯❯ talk?  10:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (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.