Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No More Acne Diet

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No More Acne Diet

Not an encyclopedic article. It's an advertisement for a particular diet. --Fang Aili 23:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. What makes this diet different from those listed at Category:Diets and List of diets? This diet is as serious as any of those listed there, is entirely non-commercial, and for once has a lot of scientific research behind it. Please see the official external links: Wai Says and Free Acne Book. - Wintran 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or else cleanup to remove POV and advert/spam/booster tone. Diets themselves are often non-proprietary, but articles like this exist to promote the books that describe the diet, or on occasion, a source of diet food or ingredients. MCB 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but there is no link or connection to any commercial interests as far as I know, which is why I personally got interested in this diet in the first place. The "book" is simply a collection of articles available online and can not be ordered from anywhere I know of. No one owns this diet, which is why it doesn't really have an official name, and it's thus not a "person's diet" as is so common among other diets. That this article needs clean-up, like most of the other diet articles do, is obvious; this was the first version. If diet articles are appropriate to Wikipedia at all is another discussion, and an interesting one I agree. There's certainly a fine boarder between how well-known the subject of an article must be to be published on Wikipedia, but this diet has a large international audience, has appeared in scientific magazines and are being discussed by respected scientists. It's something as unusual as a modern-day diet that is a serious research project, and not a promotion for a product. - Wintran 00:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

For now I'll just comment, because I'm undecided if it's notable or not: Googling the article name turns up nothing because the name is made-up; "Wai Genriiu" gets 800 hits but only 35 unique. If there are neutral scientific magazine articles that have been written, then please cite them. Also, you asked for folks from a message board related to the subject to come here to join the debate--you may want to read about meatpuppets. HollyAm 01:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wintran may be referring to this article: [1]. The thesis basically states that cooked food is bad for you, and people should eat more raw foods. It doesn't say anything about acne, and in fact I think most of us know that an orange is healthier than a Big Mac. The scientific article does not support Wai's claims that cooked food causes acne, or "cause[s] cancer, dementia, constipation, ADHD and overeating"([2]). Therefore I would categorize that article in support of Raw food diet. If No More Acne Diet proves notable (and thusfar, according to HollyAm it is not), I would suggest giving it a subcategory under Raw food diet, since it seems similar in most respects. I retract my previous accusation of adspam; there is nothing for sale on the listed websites. --Fang Aili 05:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to HollyAm: The name is made up together with members of the official forum because there was no official name to be found. As far as I know, this is because the research around what food causes acne has lead to many more discoveries than just this diet, as can be seen at Wai Says. I quote: "WaiSays.com was the result of doing research for a book. Originally we were just doing research about the relation between diet and the skin, but the more scientific studies we read (mostly financed by pharmaceutical companies), the more we discovered that ‘they’ very well know the causes of major diseases, which they publicly pretend not to know."[3]. From what I've heard it's mainly her theories about excessive calcium that has gained recognition in scientific magazines and among scientists (some brief comments are mentioned here). I might have been hasty in my judgement in believing this diet would be suitable on Wikipedia in its current state. I got the feeling that it was, being completely non-commercial and with its steady group of followers and growing recognition among fellow scientists. I agree that it could probably be included in alternate views in the acne article and be mentioned in the raw food diet. If you found that my post at Waitalk was urging people to come and vote to keep the article without participating in the discussion, that is not what I intended. I merely wanted to inform those involved that this discussion was taking place, as creating this article was my initiative from the beginning. I'll post a new message there to make that clear. - Wintran 11:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I think I'll say delete; does not seem to clear the notability bar for me. It should already be recongized, not have a "growing" recognition. Not all scientific research is right for an encyclopedia. Also, I surely think you should inform your message board folks about the discussion, and they can participate too; I merely wanted to let you know why their votes of 'keep' may be discarded. HollyAm 17:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete because it seems to fall somewhere in between original research and unverifiable. --Apyule 08:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. original research. Word of auhtors. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:41, 11 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.