Talk:Fasting mimicking diet

I

I can't figure out why that Doc James dude came in and deleted everything. EVERYTHING. No wonder it's just getting redirected now. The sources were all journal publications and like hell I'm going to go back and re-write all this. I tried to undo up to the point of his stuff, which deleted some great edits in the process, but I don't know how else to replace everything he deleted. I think it'd also be good to look up if there are any COI between him and the page, because that came out of bloody nowhere and it was really bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBelieveAliensExistAndVisitMeWhenISleep (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You're referring to the series of edits and deletes beginning here which were justified by the WP:PRIMARY nature of the content and sources that had been entered for the article. Higher-quality of evidence is needed for human health and weight-control articles per WP:MEDRS. You won't get any support for re-establishing the previous content. --Zefr (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

ohhhhhhhhh, i see, so despite the fact it's a peer reviewed scientific journal, because the source was written by the inventors, it is invalid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBelieveAliensExistAndVisitMeWhenISleep (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

We are looking for reviews. Science relies on independent replicability which review articles confirm. Support the redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The difference between a peer-reviewed article and a review article is confusing to most editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

To have a separate article on the English Wikipedia, there are a few minimum requirements. They include:

1. We must have multiple WP:Independent sources. (Sources written by people involved in the project don't count, no matter how great they are. This includes re-printed press releases).
2. It must not violate WP:NOT. (This subject is probably okay on that score.)
3. It must be acceptable to subjective editorial judgment. This isn't "my" judgment; it's all of ours, and you get a voice in that decision. However, we usually merge articles about diets, usually to articles about the inventor, a book, or to group similar diets (e.g., dozens of low-fat diets).
4. We have to have enough content in reliable sources to write more than a handful of paragraphs, including sources that provide some analysis. For example, we want to be able to explain why is this near-fasting diet different from the other near-fasting diets. To give an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it seems that we currently have a separate article on 5:2 diet, and it should probably be merged to intermittent fasting. If partial fasting (which sounds a bit like an oxymoron) existed, then that would be another possible option.

I think that this subject is currently weak on some of these points (at this time). Weakness can result in someone thinking that the whole thing should be deleted, and WP:AFD is a bit of a coin-toss for borderline cases like this. I don't really want to see this completely deleted, and I think that it's more likely to survive if we WP:MERGE it all together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing, this makes total sense. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBelieveAliensExistAndVisitMeWhenISleep (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)