Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-oestrogenic 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 delete. Sandstein 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-oestrogenic diet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This diet has no coverage in respectable RS (the phrase occurs nowhere in PUBMED's index) and so it is not possible to construct a viable article. There is coverage in unreliable sources but this is unscientific in nature and so using it leads to an unscientific/misleading article - which is what we have. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Not everything has to be covered in respectable RS to have an article, see e.g. Reiki or Intelligent Design. The topic may be fringe, but as far as I can tell it is also fairly common and so should have an article. That said, the current article we have is very bad, so I'd support a 'delete until it is better written' kind of decision. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Reki and ID have stacks of RS coverage. WP:GNG is fundamental and requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We ain't got that here so far as can see. Alexbrn (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point actually. I have only briefly looked at this topic, but it seems a bit fishy in the sense that all the results returned by Google are in favour of it, yet if it were really that effective I'd expect bodies such as the FDA to endorse it too. That said there are a lot of results returned by Google, many of which look reasonably RS. I know little about this subject, so in view of that I think it's better to stay on the sidelines of this AfD. Retract my opinion. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search and I can't find any reliable sources that give this topic more than a cursory mention. The best I could come up with is this, which isn't enough. If one can be found, I would reconsider, but if kept the article needs some serious work. It's far too credulous. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero, or very close to zero, mention in reliable sources of any type. The article makes claims that would require WP:MEDRS, but nothing even approaching coverage of this material is available there. To the extent that reliable sources are cited in the article, they are either referencing background statements not directly related to the article's premise, or are used in a deceptive manner: the cited Journal of Nutrition paper most assuredly does not attribute the positive effects of vegetable consumption to "liver cleansing", for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.