Talk:Fit for Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Notability

The "tag and run" editor fails to post here about his/her motivations. The book and diet are highly notable, as the book was a best seller. We have a responsibility to thoroughly document this, just like any other subject. Badagnani (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. The tag is pretty self-explanatory. WP:NB sets out sample notability criteria for books. This book appears to meet zero of them, at least based on the info provided here. Hence the tag. MastCell Talk 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and interesting opinion. However, it is clear that the article is not simply about "a book," but about an entire diet craze, similar to any other widely promulgated and popular diet craze covered at Wikipedia. We don't simply blank all those articles because a single editor doesn't like them. Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but we do tend to delete articles that fail to provide evidence of notability. In the form of actual independent, reliable secondary-source coverage. The tag is a request to provide such sources. Take it for what you will. MastCell Talk 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Books search. Hundreds of mentions in other books. 12 million copies sold. It would be great if your tagging wasn't simply because you don't like this diet, because that would be disruptive. There is nothing preventing this article from deconstructing the diet or its claims, something Wikipedia is very good at doing. Every notable diet craze deserves close scrutiny here. Badagnani (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dance around the issue so defensively? Notability criteria for books are spelled out here. Google Books hits and copies sold are not among them, as far as I can see. I'm just asking that the article provide some indication of how this book meets WP:NB. I don't like or dislike the diet, nor do I feel a need to "deconstruct" it. I'm talking solely about notability as defined by Wikipedia; I had hoped the tag made this clear. MastCell Talk 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to ascribe "defensiveness" to me, you are free to. My only motivation is the preservation of knowledge in our encyclopedia, and preventing the blanking of notable articles. Your "sigh" is very telling of your attitude toward other editors, as well as our readers. I have already pointed out that this article covers not just "a book," but also a highly notable diet craze--one of the biggest in recent memory--with hundreds of mentions in other books and millions of copies of the books sold. As such, this diet has been adopted by huge numbers of people all over the world and is a phenomenon Wikipedia should not be in the business of willfully ignoring (or blanking). Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have indeed "pointed this out" repeatedly. What's missing are reliable, independent secondary sources that verify that this is in fact a notable diet, book, or what have you. That's what I'm requesting, and they remain MIA despite all of the talk above. MastCell Talk 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I provided links to mentions in not a few, not tens, but hundreds of actual print books with ISBN numbers. Likely you could find even more. Badagnani (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You provided a link to a Google Books search. How many of those Google hits are usable reliable sources? I see maybe 1 (Handbook of Obesity Treatment) among the first 3 or 4 pages. MastCell Talk 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, you are now actively considering sources rather than simply "tagging and running." That is good. Here are 99 "New York Times" archive hits. Badagnani (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that rather than being snarky and handing out laundry lists of largely unusable references, you dig through these and find some reliable secondary sources that cover this topic in a usable and non-trivial manner? That would go a long way. I'll look through as well, but please stop relying on search-engine hits as de facto evidence of notability while not bothering to look through and pick out individual sources to cite. You're attacking me for requesting actual sources, but the article currently contains one reference, which is to a nearly totally unrelated topic, and a handful of iffy external links. It's actually the responsibility of editors to supply sources when adding content; attacking others as deletionists because you fail to do so is poor form. MastCell Talk 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

The article discusses trans fat in a... novel fashion. It suggests that the Diamonds were lone voices in the wilderness claiming trans fat was harmful, and that this idea was disdained by "some dieticians" until just recently, when the Diamonds were personally vindicated by NYC's trans fat ban. Needless to say, this is inaccurate. Again, sources would go a really long way here. MastCell Talk 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)