Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Redirect to Low-carbohydrate diet. WP:NOR and per consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets[edit]

Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Complete original research violation; not encyclopedic, should be transwikified to Wikiversity. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please not Please note that we already have Low-carbohydrate diet. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"please not" that I'm talking about a subarticle, since there's obviously a lot more content here than will fit into the main article. The main article already has a nice summary though. --Movingday29 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my Dutch. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete semi-random collection of primary sources. On a topic with so many good reviews that are cited in the main article, this rather odd sub-article serves no purpose. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an article about "Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets." It is a list of research articles. If an article is important use it as a source for Low-carbohydrate diet. If not forget it. Or start History of low-carbohydrate diets if you like. As long as it is in the form of an article. Redddogg (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The scope of this list is too wide (there would be many hundreds of studies to list, if comprehensive) and should be founded on secondary sources (a review of the history, or a book chapter, for example). The mix of studies is not helpful to the reader: studies on epilepsy are mixed with studies on weight loss. Most of the studies listed do not seem to be of great historical significance, and deciding on this would be WP:OR. Colin°Talk 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I previously gave my reasons here. It's an unencyclopedic list of research. Impossible to be comprehensive given scope and prone to POV in selection of research included. OccamzRazor (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I have already merged the last section (the one about metaanalyses and systematic reviews which was so far down the page that nobody here seems to have noticed it) to Low-carbohydrate_diet#Meta-analytic_studies_and_systematic_reviews. That section is entirely appropriate per WP:MEDRS, and was not included in the main article. So, this needs to be a redirect to comply with GFDL. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The information (in a more concise form) is best incorporated in Low-carbohydrate diet. I think that where this one has gotten into original research trouble is the authors' commentary about each study suggested. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Folks, I think it is unfortunate when a misguided agenda gains momentum simply because nobody wants to give it any thought. Let me summarize a few points.
    • First, this article was intentionally split out of the Low-carbohydrate diet article because that article was getting too long and the details presented in this article detracted from the overall article.
    • More than one individual has suggested there is original research or cherry-picking going on yet, interestingly, nobody has made an effort to balance the discussion. I believe that if you actually take the trouble to search the literature you will find that this list is pretty representative of what's out there. To be more to the point, I propose that, in the absence of a more precise explanation of this accusation, let us say that this particular accusation has been discussed and dismissed a long time ago.
    • I realize that it would be preferrable to have an article on the "Health effects of low carb diets" but this is, practically speaking, impossible, as I have explained in both articles as well as the discussion pages. There is no scientific consensus on what the health effects are. As such the only fair way to discuss the health effects and efficacy of the diet is to summarize the research and give the reader an idea of the range of opinions. Unfortunately this necessarily means that the article must be a list article of sorts. Although list articles are generally discouraged they are not expressly forbidden and I believe that this is one of the rare cases where a list article is appropriate. In other words, in the absence of consensus the best that can be done is to present research that represents the major opinions.
    • The argument that the research articles do not represent the research seems nonsense to me. Granted the articles and the research are not one and the same. But the point of citing major journals is that they are peer reviewed and therefore are the best sources of details about the research.
I realize that low carb diets are controversial and that many of you fundamentally don't believe in them. But the point of Wikipedia is supposed to be education and that's what this pair of articles has attempted to do. If you have a suggestion on how to organize all of this better please make it. Frankly I don't love how the two articles are organized now but it seemed the best compromise in terms of being informative and unbiased. Please don't let your own biases to get in the way.
--Mcorazao (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mcorazao, the problem is that, as Wikipedians, we shouldn't be doing a "literature search" or attempting to "summarize the research and give the reader an idea of the range of opinions". We need to cite other people who have done that. Once you do that, you end up with a concise article containing information rather than a list of studies. This is nothing to do with controversy. For example, citing small trials, often with no control group, does the reader no good. You need a secondary source from an expert in order to know whether the results from that trial are irrelevant, interesting or important. Lastly, there's a difference between a "health effect" and a "therapeutic effect" (long-term/well people vs short-term ill people) and jumbling them up here isn't useful IMO. Colin°Talk 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the article under this AfD is actually OR in the strict sense, since there is citation and, importantly, attribution - as well as an attempt at balance. However, this subject as presented - to be genuinely balanced and informative - would have to be a full and extensive review of the entire debate. I don't think that's a subject for Wikipedia: that's a subject for Wikipedia to write an article about, if anyone performs a full and extensive review. Selection (of studies) is a form of synthesis, and there's too much to choose from here, without - it seems - sufficient independent reviews to cite. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Incidentally, I don't know if such a guideline exists re the difference between selective review of research and overview of an independently reviewed topic, but if there isn't there should be. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets&oldid=1086363857"