Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gut and Psychology Syndrome

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gut and Psychology Syndrome

Lack of reliable sources on the topic. The book is self-published and the journal articles do not deal with this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, undocumented, and unverified fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Clearly a fringe theory, and the article needs to be edited to make this much clearer. But, on the other hand, there are articles on the subject at Google scholar, which don't appear to be self-published. Granted, they're all written by the same person, and I'd really like to see some proper articles from other authors (hence the "weak" keep), but, as there are also over 6,000 ghits there is some evidence that the subject is at least notable. The article seriously needs re-writing from an NPOV, making the fringe nature of the subject clear - but that's not a reason for deletion. Anaxial (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google scholar hits are 1) an extract from a publication called "Wise Traditions" published by the Radiant Life Company by Natasha Campbell-McBride 2) an apparently unpublished essay uploaded onto the MINDD Foundation website written by Natasha Campbell-McBride and 3) an unidentifed pamphlet written by an unknown author on the website "getLEANstayLEAN.com". I don't think any of these sources pass WP:V or WP:MEDRS, so cannot be used to establish notability. Particularly since only one (the one where no author is listed) might be independent of the author of the self-published books. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm the author of the article. I've added my thoughts to the article's talk page. Thanks. Deress (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you, of course, but if the comments aren't on this page, they may not be taken into account. Anaxial (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, Anaxial - Thanks. Here they are:

Well, this is frustrating...I created the article, asked for assistance, responded to concerns, made changes to address the concerns, asked for help again, and find that instead it's proposed for speedy deletion.

Addressing the assertions made above: At least three different authors are cited in this article, not just one. One of the publications is peer-reviewed in a medical journal. The program is discussed by major agencies and newspapers. These are noted in the external links section, where I was told to put them. (More details in the article's talk page.) I hope people will opt to assist, as has been requested multiple times to no avail, rather than simply vote for deletion. Deress (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more... Re: fringe. (Conventional) medical doctors refer patients to this program. Also, I had put a 'hang on' note atop the article. It is now gone. Is that simply normal procedure or a rejection of that request? Noticed that the pages describing various forms of problems suggest folks assist with an article rather than simply pop it up for deletion. That was good to see. Deress (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be redirected to Specific Carbohydrate Diet, since there are actually some reliable sources that deal with that topic (see link). Tim Vickers (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim - Do you mean simply include a reference to G-A-P-S in the SCD article? If so, I actually tried that originally, but eds kept deleting it out. (I asked for help there, too, but none came.) Deress (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unestablished therapy. Not presently enough reliable sources for an article. DGG (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unscientific quackery, and it isn't notable enough yet for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Pstanton (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (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.