Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Head

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Head

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fat Head is a non-notable fringe conspiracy theory documentary that doubts scientific evidence for the lipid hypothesis. I am not seeing any evidence this documentary is notable, it advertises itself as a science documentary but no scientists have reviewed it. Tom Naughton [1] directed the film but he is not notable either (he has not directed anything else), the article reads like a promotion piece.

As it stands the article is in a bad way filled with unsourced statements and unscientific and misleading information, for example "According to the film, among other sources such as Mark Sisson, there has never been a single scientific study that has linked a high fat diet to increased rates of heart disease". Practically the entire synopsis section is filled with unsourced nonsensical claims. The only mainstream source that mentions the documentary and is on the article is from the Houston Chronicle. I do not believe one source is enough to establish notability. The other sources on the article are not reliable sources for information about scientific matters. Lowcarbdiets.about.com for example should not be cited. There are many sources on low-carb blogs or websites advertising this documentary, but no independent secondary sources. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The documentary might be nonsense, filled with anti-science, but that can't be the reason for the AfD. If as you say it is not notable, then that is another story. I only see the one citation from a RS. If the page is written like a promotion then that should not be grounds for deletion, but for a rewrite. I'm withholding my vote until I see if others come up with something more that would prove it's notability, will watch this AfD. Sgerbic (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally was planning a re-write but not possible because no reliable sources can be found. Had a dig around today for about 45 minutes looking. Nothing out there. I would certainly be interested in what others think. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the film has anything to do with the lipid hypothesis, which is about blood cholesterol and not about a high fat diet. No !vote, I find some coverage, being ~~listed~~mentioned on Cracked.com 6 Famous Documentaries That Were Shockingly Full of Crap will not help here but [2] might. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film is about the lipid hypothesis and also covers a high-fat diet, there is a trailer of the movie on Yotube. If you run a Google search on "fat head lipid hypothesis", you will find articles written by Tom Naughton on the subject. For example, one of his articles on his website fathead-movie.com is titled "Another Big Fat (and old) Fail For The Lipid Hypothesis". As for the piece at healthcentral, it is not a reliable source written by a scientist. The author of that article was a low-carb promoter David Mendosa. I think it is best to cite medical experts on matters such as this. The problem is that the medical community have ignored this movie, there is no reliable coverage. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just isn't enough appropriately high-quality sourcing available to write a decent article. XOR'easter (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion has been advertised on various low-carb blogs, so there may be a meat-puppet problem here similar to the Malcolm Kendrick mess, where SPAS kept turning up. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "meat-puppet"? Nickandre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see WP:MEAT Curdle (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real movie available on Amazon Prime. I've never known the content, subject matter or plot of a film to be relevant to its inclusion on Wikipedia. Cloudswrest (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for this reason if no other (though there are plenty of good reasons given here). Whether or not someone agrees with a film, book, or person is no reason to disappear them. Rekleov (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs a significant copy edit to delete anything that can't be properly sourced, but the Houston Chronicle article and the Health Central review are (barely) enough to pass notability, IMO. I wouldn't have an issue with an opposite result to this discussion, however, as I do feel that it's a very thin margin here. Strikerforce^Talk 15:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Cloudswrest mentioned, this is a real movie available on Amazon Prime and for purchase in other places. Maybe you don't like the conclusions, but I've watched the movie and it seemed a fairly accurate description of the movie. Maybe the best solution would be to post a counter-claim section, much like was done on the Super-Size Me documentary page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3060:9640:4402:7570:1FCE:AAAD (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot write a "counter-claim section" if the critical sources necessary to do so do not exist; see our policy on "synthesis". And if those sources don't exist, then it's very likely the movie has flown below the radar of reliable sources, meaning that it is not notable and we shouldn't have an article on it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost please be civil. The term meat-puppet should be removed from the live version of this discussion.

When it is I will weigh in if the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in detail. In my opinion it does. Rsterbal (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Available on Amazon Prime" isn't part of our notability standards. The term "meatpuppet" while often thought impolite, has a long-established usage. In my opinion, its usage here has not been derogatory of any specific individual, and there is no reason to strike it, but that's just my opinion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia doesn't have articles solely because something exists on Amazon. It may be a real movie, but not one reliable sources seem to have noticed. There aren't enough sources to discuss the science, because noone has written about it. Noone was interested in it just as a movie, either-I looked; I couldnt find a single review apart from the Houston chronicle in a mainstream paper or website. The only places that appear to have noticed it apart from health central are fringey websites supporting low carb diets and blogs, none of which are RS. There just is not enough to meet the requirements for Film or GNG. Curdle (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure the article could use some additional citations. The more glaring issue here is MatthewManchester1994. The user clearly has an agenda so much so the user changed their account to Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434 in some attempt to hide. I do not know if they are being paid for this or what their issue is but they are on an anti low-carb tirade. "similar to the Malcolm Kendrick mess" - MatthewManchester1994. Do not let this user be involved with any further deletion attempts for any wiki page. Concernedasparagus 02:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Concernedasparagus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- They have left the building- see WP:vanish so you needn't be concerned any longer. Welcome to Wikipedia, BTW. Curdle (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been deleted before in 2009...see [3]

Should that go in the box at the top? Because I'm not sure how to do that... Curdle (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be an immediate delete. There is a previous deletion discussion that was a consensus delete vote. 82.132.231.200 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — 82.132.231.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep - As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial namechanger and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project. A quick research of the film reveals that in addition to the sources that User:Strikerforce rightly says are enough to 'barely' pass notability, I found an article at Motley Fool and this one at Vulture. It is not a major film to be sure, but there seems to be no reason for deletion other than the POV pushing of the proposer. In the original deletion way back in 2009, the proposer wrote, correctly "This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a too early for an article now." I would suggest that it is no longer too early. [Addendum: this review is now beyind a paywall. It is from BoxOffice (magazine), a clearly reliable source.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting this "serial namechanger" from. That would be a personal attack, and doesn't match anything I've seen. If there has been an SPI or some other evidence then you may have a point, but not from his behaviour before leaving. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like it" is a poor argument, but not one that anyone has actually based a deletion case upon here. Sources are good, borderline ad hominems are bad. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Bilby, User "Skeptic from Britain" became "MatthewManchester1994" and then "vanished". While still in his first(?) incarnation, he repeatedly blanked his talk page ("deleting old conversations") although the last conversation had been in progress as little as one hour before. In addition, he actually thanked me for citing two highly regarded scientists who share the low-carb point of view, Tim Noakes and Richard D. Feinman, and promptly began editing (vandalising?) their pages. Anarchie76 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with blanking your own userpage. There is definitely nothing wrong with changing a username after suffering large scale off-wiki harassment - doing so does not make an editor a "serial namechangr". Nor do I see any vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Skeptic from Britain who proposed this deletion is associated with Quackwatch and is a heavily biased supporter of plant-based diets, he was on a crusade to attack any high-fat or meat-eating diet as "quackery". He was clearly a paid editor. Low-carb man (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Low-carb man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please refrain from unfounded personal attacks. Being "associated with" an external website is not necessarily a problem; people can have strong opinions without being paid. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Skeptic from Britain has been unmasked as an anti-animal produce vegan diet activist and has no association with QuackWatch. Jimmy Wales’s post alludes to this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the new sources are sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I don't believe promoting a fringe theory makes something non-notable. SemiHypercube 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt that this film has been hugely influential in advancing the low-carb/paleo/keto movement, which, despite protestations to the contrary, has a great deal of solid science behind it. While Tom Naughton is not a dietician or nutritionist, his blog makes a great deal of sense in scientific terms. When discussing science, he consistently references actual studies. Anarchie76 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Jimmy Wales and other keep arguments above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons mentioned above. Decisions to delete articles should not be influenced by strong personal bias or personal disagreements or online feuds. ~ Mellis (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as The Houston Chronicle, DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, Health Central etc. The article can be edited for neutrality so that it is less of a diatribe Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable. However needs a serious trim as dubious "science" is being WP:COATRACKed in via anecdote in the synopsis section. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2018 (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.