Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese food therapy

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese food therapy

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

A one-sentence article which fails to establish its significance or indeed show that it is considered to be a distinct entity apart from TCM or Chinese diet more generally. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough content to prove notability Shii (tock) 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some stuff out there that specifically focuses on the dietary angle, but I agree that I'm somewhat wondering if it should be included in the overall TCM article since that seems to be the major focus of the stuff I'm finding. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – I see why an article created in 2002 that is still two-lines long in 2014 would be submitted for AfD, but there are plenty of reliable sources out there to prove notability. (And I'm putting aside the five sources that are already cited in the article.) Ute Engelhardt's "Dietetics in Tang China and the first extant works of materia dietetica" (in Innovation in Chinese Medicine, Cambridge University Press, 2001) shows that the shiliao tradition goes back a long way. See also Vivienne Lo, "Pleasure, Prohibition, and Pain: Food and Medicine in China", in Of Tripod and Palate: Food, Politics, and Religion in Traditional China (Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). There are two interesting vignettes on food therapy in TJ Hinrichs and Linda Barnes (editors), Chinese Medicine and Healing: An Illustrated History (Harvard UP, 2013; see "Folk Nutritional Therapy" on pp. 259-260, and "Food Therapy" on pp. 339-341). For modern China, see Nancy Chen's Food, Medicine, and the Quest for Good Health: Nutrition, Medicine, and Culture (Columbia UP, 2013). Abundant "Oprah" kind of literature is also listed in Talk:Chinese food therapy#Recomended References (sic). I think this is more than enough to prove notability. The address the nominator's and Tokyogirl79's other concern, this topic is related to but distinct from Traditional Chinese Medicine, as "food therapy" is about dietetics and preventive hygiene rather than actual medical therapies. "Food therapy" also overlaps with Chinese cuisine, but the latter is much broader and not typically informed by therapeutic or preventive considerations. In light of all this, I think this page more than deserves to be kept! Madalibi (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see Traditional Chinese medicine#Chinese food therapy. There is not a single word or decent paragraph in the main article. There is no reason to have a separate article to promote fringe nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: I agree that this article should not promote anything. But so what? Chinese "food therapy" may not be scientific, but neither are twerking and circumcision. They're just cultural practices that have reliable sources about them and as such deserve to be documented on Wikipedia. Madalibi (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a basic "Origins" section to the article to show how this topic could be treated. Madalibi (talk)

Strong keep- Food Therapy is a distinct module/modality within Traditional Chinese Medicine. Furthermore, Madalibi should be commended for single-handedly rebuilding the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr Fink! Madalibi (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's significant coverage in major historical documents. Although some of these works have been lost over time, it appears to have been mentioned in the Dunhuang manuscripts. As stated in the lede, it's also the subject of several contemporary publications. -A1candidate (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Madalibi. This has been fixed up for rescue. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - after Madalibi's complete rewrite of the article, I don't think there's any doubt that the topic is notable. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2014 (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.