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, with additional sourcing added to the article to confirm notability. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fit for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Promotional article, non-notable subject which fails notability criteria. Actually, this was speedy-deleted as blatant advertising, but the speedy deletion was contested and I think it's more appropriate for discussion here.

No decent coverage in independent, reliable sources. Literally the only usable source is Quackwatch, which is not exactly the makings of a solid encyclopedia article. I discussed the lack of sources a year ago, and got a lot of attitude but no help in actually finding any (see Talk:Fit for Life). At this point, given the lack of independent, quality sources, this fails notability guidelines and should be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - One of the most notable diets of U.S. origin. We don't say we're advertising the Stratocaster, or Guitar Hero, or the Macrobiotic diet, or the Grapefruit diet, by having an article about these. We endeavor to have the best possible encyclopedia, one which is not censored. Anyone with expertise in nutrition--whether they believe this diet to be good or bad--cannot possibly state that this diet, which achieved huge press and public interest, represents a "non-notable" subject. Please direct your energies to improving our encyclopedia, not depleting it. Badagnani (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly, I feel I do direct significant effort to improving the encyclopedia. Rather than shake your head at my ignorance, how about employing your expertise to find actual, usable reliable sources - which should be easy given the prominence you assert for this diet. MastCell ^Talk 06:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - poorly sourced and, at times, poorly written, but as a NYT bestseller and a popular diet, comparable to Atkins diet, it is notable. For those that are interested, some good, reliable sources may be found here and here. -kotra (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the problem here may be that since it was only popular for a brief period in the mid 80s to early 90s, its notability is not directly apparent to us nowadays. But Atkins, too, had a short window of popularity (shorter, even?), but its notability is assured because it was popular (and discredited) more recently, at a time when Wikipedia existed. -kotra (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historical, if nothing else. Certainly passes WP:ORG and article is not written as an advert. §FreeRangeFrog 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - it's not a brilliant article, but the sources that are provided are sufficient to show some degree of notability. It would be good to have independent verification of the '12 million copies' and 'NYT Bestsellers List' claims, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Discussed in Gale's Encyclopedia of diets pp. 383–386. I'll see that the article does not make unwarranted statements. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've significantly edited the article. All statements have sources now, and criticism is included. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:51, 9 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.