Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookie diet

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 per consensus – PeaceNT 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie diet

Cookie diet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, so article was restored and listed here so you-all can offer your crumbs of wisdom. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - spam, only link is to the promoter's website. No evidence that this is widely accepted. Walton monarchist89 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One contributor found this in deletion review, there's another source within the article and the creator of the diet has published a book on it, which doesn't seem like a vanity publisher either. The book is listed as being published by 'Warner Books', according to the warner books redirect here on WP these are published by a group belonging to the largest publisher in France. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless of the quality of the article I think the mentioned sources and book secure it by themselves. This was just a very quick check, let me look for further sources, this doesn't seem like a clean-cut delete. QuagmireDog 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a reliable source for a citation, but this article also points out that the doctor has written several books. Perhaps an article about the subject himself with a mention of the cookie diet underneath? The rest of my search results seemed to be pure PR advertising and blog posts. QuagmireDog 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be a verifiable. Editor does not establish such as well as could be done however. TonyTheTiger 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks notable and has links. Unfortunately it's not sourced quite enough, but it gets 63,900 Google hits, which seems like a sufficient number. → JARED ^(t)  20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with Spamerectomy. A suspicious number of single-purpose accounts seem to be interested in touting this, but notable enough, e.g. Good Morning America article [1], etc... The less than glowing reviews from nutritionists quoted in the GMA are not (gasp!) included, so perhaps an intrepid editor will ad them. - Aagtbdfoua 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pardon the Freudian misspelling above. - Aagtbdfoua 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notability is sufficient. Wryspy 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above and the DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 28 January 2007 (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.