Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics[edit]

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)

The only independent source cited that is about this "network" is Harriet Hall at Skeptical Inquirer. That doesn't constitute sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a WP:FRINGE group and we need much more and better sourcing to be able to write a verifiably neutral article. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is mention of this group by Harriet Hall and briefly in The Skeptic's Dictionary but not enough to establish an entire article, per lack or reliable secondary sources would be best to delete. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect the one reliable bit to another article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text now seems amply supported by references to independent sources and, therefore, there can be no case for a violation of WP:FRINGE. On the contrary, it evidently offers valuable information about a controversial scientific subject. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The "sources" that were added were not about THINCS, they were about the scientific consensus linking saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, which THINCS members repudiate. The only sources about THINCS are namechecks in the two overlapping articles by Harriet Hall. Any "information" about the "controversial subject" was blatant WP:SYN. The applicable guidance is at WP:FRIND. This does not reach that level. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one other reliable source that mentions the organization, but only briefly in the context of the broader topic. I don't think that's enough to make the organization itself notable. Now, it might be in the public interest to mention the organization somewhere, so that people who want to look it up can find out what it is (compare this discussion from October). But that would require only the most selective of merges. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics is mentioned in the "controversy" section on the lipid hypothesis article. I suggest the name be redirected there. I will probably expand that article at some point. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to a redirect to Lipid hypothesis. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to lipid hypothesis. The organization seems to be only briefly mentioned in the mainstream media, usually in connection to a paper published by some of its members.[1] Catrìona (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cannot just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ATA. That's not what this is about. The issue is the absence of reliable independent sources about the group. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cholesterol controversy currently redirects here. Perhaps this should be re-targeted to be about that topic instead. (some recently removed content was on that topic) There's been some evidence that topic has enough coverage to justify an article; I don't see referencing to support an article on this group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected "Cholesterol controversy" to the controversy section on the lipid hypothesis article. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Skeptic and XOReaster hit the nail on the head with their rationale. Strikerforce^Talk 15:17, 17 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.