Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intuitive eating: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:48, 19 May 2018

Intuitive eating

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utter dreck that has been in Wikipedia since it was created in 2006. It has never been loved but has been filled and then depleted of horseshit fad diet shilling and various academics promoting themselves. I had speedied this and the tag was stripped so now we have to go through this exercise. There are ~~some reviews~~ some reviews but if you look at the them they can be summarized as saying "small shitty studies have been done that we can't learn anything from". It is not worth keeping this. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (redact fix pubmed link; had filter activated but not in search URL, now it is. sorry Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as entire books are written about it. The reviews do not say what the nomination claims -- that's a false quotation. Instead, they say things like "Research on intuitive eating has increased in recent years. Extant research demonstrates substantial and consistent associations between intuitive eating and both lower BMI and better psychological health." Note also that the nominator removed most of the content from the page before nominating it for deletion, including lots of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was a huge bolus of bad content added by a student who is part of a class that has generally added bad content to WP articles, and the members of which have been nominating each other's "improved" pages for DYK and then even approving each others' nominations. Blech all around. Your summary of the history, the literature and this page are all incorrect. If you look at the body of the review from which you quote, instead of the abstract (see WP:NOABSTRACT) you will see that it says There is a dearth of research including a broad mix of respondents/participants such that results can be generalised to the larger population. And the next time you strip a speedy nomination you should explain why.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have declined the speedy deletion tag -- this was and is not "blatently promotion" and "in need of a total rewrite" as WP:CSD#G11 specifies. In fact I ahve removed the {{advert}} tag, as this does not even appear sufficiently promotional to warrant a cleanup tag, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes that DYK thing is a big problem. If you post some diffs (here or on my talk page), I will be glad to help follow up on that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article at DYK and was thinking of reviewing it. I expected to flag it as needing significant work but, as there was so much material, needed more time to go through it. As for the literature review, my quote is quite accurate as a summary of the conclusions. The point about calling for more research is so common in reviews that it's a cliché. There's always more to find out and, in this case, they want more studies of other groups besides Caucasian women, who were the focus of most studies considered. That's not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed it's not a reason to delete, and apologies I wasn't more precise. I meant I was concerned that students were approving one another's DYKs especially on any topic in the vicinity of medicine; that has nothing to do with AfD, it's just a big problem of its own. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted bit is a lazy grab at the abstract and you know this. If you are working competently you pay attention to the evaluation of the evidence. The part i quoted is the most important part in terms of generalizing that conclusion. You are correct that this one sentence is not a reason to delete. I am not going to respond to you further, andrew d.. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 3) Hey, so, this is way outside my expertise and I tagged in some projects and categories precisely because I had some concerns when I encountered the entry at DYK and wanted more experienced eyes on. I guess what I'm wondering is, just as a person out in the world, this is an expression I have heard not infrequently and if the studies really aren't good, wouldn't it be worthwhile for encyclopedia readers to find an entry saying that? I'm not ivoting because like I say, this is not my area of expertise so I won't pretend I have a handle on medical notability, but it just seems to me it could be useful to readers for this to be cut back to whatever can or can't be said confidently based on what studies there are (and looks like PubMed lists almost 100 that at least touch on the topic?), and page protect if necessary to keep out future promo, unsubstantiated claims, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only five of those pubmed hits are reviews. I linked to them in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I think the link might be broken? When I click it, I get 99 hits (or I did yesterday; today 100). Just FYI Jytdog. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes i saved the wrong URL. in pubmed you can just "filter" by reviews, without having that in the search URL. I have fixed it so the filter is baked in. Sorry.Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that it is not worth it. Nobody competent has spent any time on this for twelve years and what we have had is embarrassingly bad academic shilling and promotionalism. If you vote !keep you better be ready to put your own time into making this a competent article and to keeping the crap out that keeps getting dumped into this. There is a ton of media and academic hype and it will be a LOT of work to maintain. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lots of articles about diets such as the grapefruit diet, the morning banana diet, the werewolf diet and many more. Intuitive eating is comparatively sensible; eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise. We should obviously have pages about this as well as the crank and fad diets. If the pages are imperfect then they should be improved, not deleted as that's our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood about the significance of the task. In addition to Andrew's remarks about other diet pages and applicable policy, which I tend to agree with, I'm also actually not so sure that deleting would be less work than trimming and protecting the page; if deleted, it will very surely be recreated, and, I think it's quite difficult to make a case to salt a topic on which a valid entry could be written just because it has not been. I'll note, also, that while the entry had been neglected for such a long time, within 24 hours of my tagging in a number of additional projects and categories, three new editors were on the page. The seven-day window of AfD may give us some further indication on whether improvements would continue. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this gone. This is one of those cases where there is a chance that the community will keep this, and I will feel obligated to fix it because people will prance in here and vote keep and then prance away leaving this steaming pile of shit behind. My feeling blackmailed that way is my own deal though; i own that :) Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I just gotta say, I relate to that last sentence so hard :) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't agree with @Andrew Davidson:'s assertion that "eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise" ... "is comparatively sensible." As the article on Hunger (motivational state) makes pretty clear, hunger is a multifactorial beast, with psychological and social components in addition to 'mere' physiological ones. "Eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise" could actually be a really bad piece of medical advice for some people. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Medical article filled with OR essay-style fluff? Kill it with fire. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parts are written like an WP:ADVERT, the blog posts of a non-notable "nutritional counsellor" are used extensively, a search on Google Scholar suggests that this is a hobby-horse of a very small group of researchers (particularly a Tracy Tylka), obviously very little interest in making this a balanced article, and the potential for dissemination of poor medical advice. Deletey McDeleteface. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Hijiri88. A rambling piece of OR. No justifiable reason for keeping this in the encyclopedia, and spare me please, of the need to list all the policies/guidelines why it shouldn't be WP:TNT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by user:Andrew Davidson, the current version of the article is misleading with regard to the scientific support or lack thereof for intuitive eating. The current version has 10 citations and various errors and advertisements whereas the deleted version has over 60 citations (most of which are from peer reviewed journals). The idea that only review articles are acceptable for a psychology topic is untenable as you would then need to delete all wikipedia psychology topics that are less than at least five years old (as there is enough work done to aggregate a review). Arguing that the 30 or so studies on this topic are terrible is essentially saying that you know more about this topic than the editors and reviewers who are scientific experts in this area. Also, this page needs to be recategorized as psychology and not medicine so that the evaluation can be more appropriate given the standards in that field. Also, there should be discussion of whether or not the prior content and 50 additional sources should be deleted (this was a unilateral decision by an editor who knew the student status of the editor). If the deletion is warranted then there should be no worries as the collective wikipedia group of editors will agree with the edit. In summary -- It is important for everyone to be able to evaluate the revised version before voting for deletion and the category should not be medicine.Prof Haeffel (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prof Haeffel thank for your note. I will disclose for you, since you didn't, that you are the professor for the class I mentioned above, and the person who added the huge bolus of bad content is your student. I am sorry that you don't understand our sourcing requirements for content about health, WP:MEDRS. There are only five reviews in pubmed; and I am not sure how many of those reviews would hold up under the criteria (i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further). Content about whether diet advice is effective for maintaining or optimizing health, or for weight loss, and whether it is safe, unambiguously falls under MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that deletion listings are not univocal--we tag in as many different topics as might draw editors with something useful to say on the subject. It's essentially just a notification system; right now this AfD listed to "medicine" and "food and drink" (and categorized as "organisation, corporation or product"). Anyone can add more as they see fit: WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting (that said--just to head off any possible difficulties--I'll note that in 100-odd AfDs, I don't believe I've ever seen a listing category removed, and doing so without explicit consensus probably would not go over well.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Prof Haeffel was reacting to the deletion sorting. Well what I said about sourcing is still true; the studies cited by the student were primary sources (per WP:MEDDEF) and not OK, as are the refs in the article now. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was only responding to that one aspect--don't want to speak for Prof Haeffel but I believe they were also trying to raise a number of other issues, and delsort was just the only one for which I had something useful (I hope) to add! Will let you and others carry on addressing the rest. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, of course I am biased toward my students. Probably as much as you seem to be biased against them (as we've had discussions prior to this). Given the biases, shall we agree to both remove ourselves further from this and let the community decide? I appreciate your rigid enforcement of the MEDRS rules. The problem is that you seem to be holding this article to a standard that is not consistent with similar articles (even in medicine). For example, Exercise is likely one of the most important factors for both physical and mental health, and yet there are citations from Slate magazine and an encyclopedia. If you look at Operant conditioning one of the most important theories in all of psychology, and the basis for most behavior therapies, you see that there are only 5 or so review articles out of 78 citations (and citations include "eurogamer" and random books). Similarly, if you look up meditation (which like dieting has clear implications for health) it appears there are only a handful of review articles (out of 200 citations! of which most are books). And finally, if you actually look at the main DIETING page you can see that it does not conform to your standards at all (50 citations including a USA Today citation and about 4 review articles). So, it is only fair to nominate the main Dieting page for deletion as well and maybe a whole host of other ones. I found these examples in about 5 minutes. The revised article is at least as good as existing articles in these areas (it has a similar amount of review articles and, unlike other articles, NO non-peer reviewed journal articles.) It is also concerning that you have put yourself in the position of evaluating the review articles ("i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further"). It would seem that if the reviews are published in peer reviewed journals then that job has been done by other experts in that area. Anyhow, I ask that you please consider putting the revision back and allow the community to decide as we both may be biased in this situation.Prof Haeffel (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community is deciding whether to keep this or not, in this discussion. Your response has nothing to do with how we operate here nor with this deletion discussion. Please do not continue to abuse your editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To compare the page under discussion to other pages, arguing for similar or different application of policies is a legitimate form of expression at an AfD, and in no way an abuse of editing privileges. Such arguments are sometimes persuasive, but perhaps more often discounted, as is discussed at Other Stuff Exists. It is also legitimate to argue that current policy or practice should change, or an exception be made under WP:IAR such arguments are rarely successful, but sometimes gain traction. The comment above seems rather close to the line of what is acceptable to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am going to revert the page to the status at which point it was nominated for deletion. A large amount of content was added including over 50 citations (which somewhat addresses the "over citing of Evans" issue noted below). It was this content (a "bolus of bad content") that apparently motivated the current discussion for deleting the page. Thus, it is unclear why the content was removed prior to nomination for deletion. I assume it will be okay with the individual who nominated the page for deletion to restore that content because it will only help his or her cause given how terrible that content was...and given that it was the reason for deletion in the first place. It would also be useful for discussion and voting to articulate why a secondary article on a theory of dieting is up for deletion while the primary dieting page is not up for deletion. Both appear to suffer from the same problem with citations -- as "being a review in the literature is a minimum requirement" for the cited material. Finally, restoring the new content directly applies to determining if the page meets criteria for TNT. Do the extra citations and content clearly show that nothing is salvageable for this page.Prof Haeffel (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that this is in fact a notable topic, and I do not find the nominator's expressed reasons for deletion to be other than a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether this is sound medical advice is irrelevant, as we don't give medical advice in any case. Whether this is in fact the sort of topic that falls under WP:MEDRS I am not sure of. But even assuming that it is, that does not affect the notability of the topic. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that the current version is mode closely in compliance with MEDRS than the version with 66 cited sources including 5 review articles. Prof Haeffel, you should be aware that that version was not deleted, but only reverted. It remains in the edit history, and could be restored by any editor, although that should not be done against consensus (See WP:BRD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel vote as you will but your edit here was bad. The page is horribly promotional for the academics who cooked up the concept and whose work is cited multiple times -- and if you don't believe that academics abuse WP for promotion I have several COIN and SPI threads you can review. You can start with this one, which feels mighty relevant. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I will agree that Evans is overcited in the current version. I have no need to be told that academic promotion exists on Wikipedia, I have seem much of it myself. I never hinted that such a thing does not occur. Nonetheless, I don't think he article as a whole is promotional in the sense that a cleanup tag is warranted. If this is kept the matter can be debated on the article talk page, or any changes that any editor thinks would improve things can be made, and if need be, discussed. If there is a consensus to delete, then the matter of a tag becomes moot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere but this article's ain't it. A "rambling piece of OR" sums it up pretty well. No prejudice to recreation if can be done in a standard, encyclopedic manner. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, Template:UI, would you say the same of this version? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *'''Delete'''. Per {{U|Jytdog|nom}} and {{U|Hijiri88}}. A rambling piece of OR. No justifiable reason for keeping this in the encyclopedia, and spare me please, of the need to list all the policies/guidelines why it shouldn't be [[WP:TNT]]. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. As noted by user:Andrew Davidson, the current version of the article is misleading with regard to the scientific support or lack thereof for intuitive eating. The current version has 10 citations and various errors and advertisements whereas the deleted version has over 60 citations (most of which are from peer reviewed journals). The idea that only review articles are acceptable for a psychology topic is untenable as you would then need to delete all wikipedia psychology topics that are less than at least five years old (as there is enough work done to aggregate a review). Arguing that the 30 or so studies on this topic are terrible is essentially saying that you know more about this topic than the editors and reviewers who are scientific experts in this area. Also, this page needs to be recategorized as psychology and not medicine so that the evaluation can be more appropriate given the standards in that field. Also, there should be discussion of whether or not the prior content and 50 additional sources should be deleted (this was a unilateral decision by an editor who knew the student status of the editor). If the deletion is warranted then there should be no worries as the collective wikipedia group of editors will agree with the edit. In summary -- It is important for everyone to be able to evaluate the revised version before voting for deletion and the category should not be medicine.[[User:Prof Haeffel|Prof Haeffel]] ([[User talk:Prof Haeffel|talk]]) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
-:*[[User:Prof Haeffel]] thank for your note. I will disclose for you, since you didn't, that you are the professor for the class I mentioned above, and the person who added the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Intuitive_eating&type=revision&diff=838353727&oldid=810160803 huge bolus of bad content] is your student. I am sorry that you don't understand our sourcing requirements for content about health, [[WP:MEDRS]].  There are only five reviews in pubmed; and I am not sure how many of those reviews would hold up under the criteria (i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further).  Content about whether diet advice is effective for maintaining or optimizing health, or for weight loss, and whether it is safe, unambiguously falls under MEDRS. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)<br>
+:*[[User:Prof Haeffel]] thank for your note. I will disclose for you, since you didn't, that you are the professor for the class I mentioned above, and the person who added the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Intuitive_eating&type=revision&diff=838353727&oldid=810160803 huge bolus of bad content] is your student. I am sorry that you don't understand our sourcing requirements for content about health, [[WP:MEDRS]].  There are only five reviews in pubmed; and I am not sure how many of those reviews would hold up under the criteria (i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further).  Content about whether diet advice is effective for maintaining or optimizing health, or for weight loss, and whether it is safe, unambiguously falls under MEDRS. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)<br/>
 :*Just a note that deletion listings are not univocal--we tag in as many different topics as might draw editors with something useful to say on the subject. It's essentially just a notification system; right now this AfD listed to "medicine" and "food and drink" (and categorized as "organisation, corporation or product"). Anyone can add more as they see fit: [[WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting]] <small>(that said--just to head off any possible difficulties--I'll note that in 100-odd AfDs, I don't believe I've ever seen a listing category removed, and doing so without explicit consensus probably would not go over well.)</small> [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 ::* Oh I see. Prof  Haeffel was reacting to the deletion sorting.  Well what I said about sourcing  is still true; the studies cited by the student were primary sources (per [[WP:MEDDEF]]) and not OK, as are the refs in the article now. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ::::I hear you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''', per [[WP:TNT]]. There may be a notable topic here somewhere but this article's ain't it. A "rambling piece of OR" sums it up pretty well. No prejudice to recreation if can be done in a standard, encyclopedic manner. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
+:*I am curious, {{UI|K.e.coffman}}, would you say the same of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Intuitive_eating&oldid=841769662 this version]? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)