Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Eenfeldt

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 speedy keep. "Keep" !votes unanimous, satisfies WP:SK#1 per this edit by the nominator. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Eenfeldt[edit]

[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)

Andreas Eenfeldt is a promoter of a low-carb high-fat diet, an idea not back by mainstream nutrition or scientific research. He has written some books promoting this fad diet but there is no evidence of notability, so this fails WP:GNG. There is nothing on pubmed about Andreas Eenfeldt, nor on JSTOR, or on Google Books, so reliable sources are lacking. What is needed are reliable secondary sources but it is hard to locate any. Mainstream science has basically ignored his ideas so it is not possible to write a biography about this person with various reviews from journals. I do not want to be accused of being biased - I am all for including fringe content on Wikipedia but not without reliable coverage. His books have not been reviewed in any academic or science journals, nor any reliable website for that matter. It is difficult to find any neutral websites that discuss his ideas. The ones that do are all low-carb diet websites that are heavily biased, thus primary sources. The minor newspaper coverage that can be found on Google News is not reliable and reads like tabloid advertisement (Daily Mail etc). Because of the lack of reliable independent secondary sources, the article should be deleted.

Keep I am withdrawing my original vote to delete this article, based on new references found by Macrofour. I am satisfied that papers such as this are reliable [1], I have striked my original delete nomination comment. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a policy basis, I believe the nomination is correct and justified, so I will say Delete. There may be a greater issue here in that the work of this individual, as well as Malcom Kendrick and Uffe Ravnskov (among others) simply needs to be better covered by reliable sources, but that is not something that we have the power to change on our own. Without reliable secondary sources, we simply can't keep the article. Strikerforce^Talk 20:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page should not be deleted. Whether or not you agree with his science, Andreas Eenfeldt is a controversial figure whose impact on Swedish society has been the subject of an independent sociological paper the reference and commentrary for which I have added. His impact on Swedish society and the low carb movement cannot be denied from a sociological perspective. Any concerns over the reader being misinformed about the controversial nature of Eenfeldt's advice should be allayed by the addition of this information. The paper is a highly credible academic secondary source that justifies the retention of this entry on sociological (not scientific) grounds. Macrofour (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is a good reliable reference. However one source IMO is not enough to establish an entire article on Eenfeldt. If others are found then I will change my vote, but so far it is very difficult to find anything. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added two others. I think the problem here is that people have focussed mainly on the scientific validity of Eenfeldt's work & so have missed these other references. That is not where his notability from secondary sources comes from. Instead it comes from the related social sciences field. The validity of the science behind Eenfeldt's claims will come, if at all, through his work in the Dietary Science Foundation which I have also added. Feel free to make edits to my additions. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform after all. Macrofour (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for scientific sources that evaluate his work in medical journals, admittedly this is lacking so based on policy I was thinking he was not notable. I did not realise he was covered in various papers on sociology. This is very unexpected but quite interesting actually! I have withdrawn my deletion vote. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot just erase people from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , but the extent of the negative material is disproportionate. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 16 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.