Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah diet

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah diet

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

I couldn't find any independent reliable sources except for Quackwatch and two "human interest" type news stories from 2007[1][2]. (The journal article appears to have been written by an employee of the organization that is promoting the diet.) The other sources are either passing mentions (e.g., a book about diets includes it in a long list of diets) or not WP:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there aren't any other independent mentions, then it's not notable enough for an article here. If anyone can find such sources and improve the article, let us know here so we can change our !votes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete but only if information is merged elsewhere. I am the original author of the article. I am confused as to the reason for this being put up for deletion. There is no doubt that the diet exists and that it is promoted by its creator. If the issue is the article's content then surely this is not a reason for deletion as content can be improved upon. If the problem is of independent sources then the various articles about it surely indicate sufficiency in that regard because they are evidence of the diet's existence. Moreover, while the journal article may be questionable, it is nevertheless a journal article. As to the diet's notability, I was surprised to see it included on Template:Veganism and vegetarianism. There is no doubt in my mind that this diet exists and has its followers, even if it is not a particularly well-known diet. Can someone please explain further the reasons for the afd? --One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is notability. You need more "independent" sources. If you can find and add them, then !votes will be changed and this AfD will likely be withdrawn. So get busy and improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I ever send anything to AFD is my belief that the subject does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article. The requirements are strict about only non-questionable, fully independent sources "counting", so a journal article by a paid member of the organization does not indicate notability at all. The sources must also discuss the subject "in depth", which "human-interest" stories don't (typically) do. Another way to think about this might be like this: Pretend that you knew nothing at all about it, and that you had no information from the proponents. Could you write a real encyclopedia article, without repeating the same facts? Or would you get a paragraph or two and be stuck with a doomed WP:PERMASTUB?
  BTW, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool m:Mergeist, so if you can think of an article that this could be merged to (perhaps we need a Biblically based diet page to collect several of these diets of dubious notability?), then I'd support that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I see your point of view now. I'm happy to switch to delete if the article is merged elsewhere. If there's an article on minor fad diets, that should be enough. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet bare minimum needed for GNG; whether the stories are "human interest stories" or not is irrelevant; @One Salient Oversight: here are some additional sources:, [3], [4], [5], [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimandia (talk • contribs) 05:20, May 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
- GNG requires coverage "in depth", which human-interest stories don't typically provide. These sources often give little more than a barebones description, and none if them meet reliable source standards for health content, e.g., whether there are sufficient nutrients in it. (The Daily Mail might not be considered reliable for anything, since its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is so poor.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular diets often receive coverage in general media and meet the criteria of GNG. I don't think they require the same level of coverage in medical sources as in WP:MEDRS's example: "Supplemental Vitamin E and selenium increase the risk of prostate cancer." The article is not making any claims like that. Yes, the Daily Mail sucks, but until it's blacklisted it's apparently considered an acceptable source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage in independent sources, per WP:Golden rule Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I defy any normal human to find their way in this thicket of links and run-on sentences, so I hope my vote - to KEEP gets included in the totals. I could not figure out how to put it in the KEEP section. I fail to understand why this very sensible and, it must be noted, unprofitable nutrition regimen would be getting the axe in the first place. Are you also considering the deletion of your McDonald's entry? If not, why not. The Hallelujah Diet, bland though it may be to the average American's jaded palate, is at least not killing tens of thousands of Bernaysed customers with its marginal nutrition and all-sugar-all-the-time fare; not to mention all those damn carcinogenics. And why do we give a damn what Quackwatch says? Many of us know that site is just a shill created for the sole purpose of fighting tooth and nail against any and all attempts to threaten the income stream of its owners, the AMA and the medical-industrial, sickness-maintenance cabal; hardly an objective opinion, eh? The only "...serious deficiencies" in Mr Barrett's QW smear are to the bottom lines of those who pay him. How many veggies have you ever heard of being the subject of a pharmacological study? I also note that QW is your only quoted source but, I would never ever accuse Wiki of trying to stack the deck. That wouldn't be right, would it? Might even be seen by some as an abuse of power ;) Is Jimmy really in favor of stifling the very few (and small) voices of reason on this issue? If so, why? I don't want to believe it's because he might be working for the same gentle folks who would like to see the eating habits of Americans remain just as they are. note: I have tried before to register (I am not a big fan of unsigned opinions) with no success. I hope this meets your contribution guidelines anyway as I feel it is necessary input. If it doesn't measure up try making this stuff comprehensible to the average analog mind. Thanks, NjW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.136 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — 70.106.231.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi, I'm back with a postscript. As I was closing this page, I decided to re-review my original comments, They're fine as-is. However, I noticed that the first researcher's comments, Whatamidoing, states that all he was able to come up with in the way of Pro or Con was Quackwatch's (interesting history - look it up, just not on Wiki) input on this diet. In hopes of doubling the range of opinion, here is another POV for all you Deleters. Dr Russell Blalock knows this stuff backwards, forwards and sideways. He also walked away from a thriving Neurosurgical practice in order to focus on educating the public as to the abysmal truth behind American fare (diet would be to insult that term). We call that living a principle-centered life where I come from; I recommend it. If it's the medical science aspect of this diet that is so hard to comprehend for those who just want to hit the old delete key, all that info is in his seminal book, Health and Nutrition Secrets, 2006. He says it in plain English (unlike the maze one encounters all over today's culture, such as the editing page of a Wiki entry), with total command of his subject. You-all (the Doc hails from Louisiana) may delete this diet for a host of reasons but, after reading a few reviews (you didn't think I was going to ask you to read the thing, did you? ;) of the Doc's book, the FACTS as to why this diet stands head and shoulders above most of the others won't be one of them. I advise you not to waste your time on the obligatory Quackwatch smear of this good Doc or anyone else speaking a smidgen of the despicable truth. Just trying to bring a bit of balance into this discussion. My name is Nigel at freesense at gmail and nobody is paying me to say any of this. You can take that to the bank because I refuse to. NjW PPS me again, sorry. Motivation (cui bono) is always my first concern in surmising someone's reasons for opining as s/he does. So you know, I am a freethinking Humanist civil libertarian (far Left) AND libertarian (far Right). Not too many of us around in any era. My goal here is, as always, to help increase the variety of voices and views - on this or any other issue. I MIGHT be okay with a merging of this entry so long as there was an easy UNIVERSAL TAG way to search for its main tag terms. For now, I am still in the KEEP column. I'd also appreciate a quick email from someone once a decision is made - be nice to know how this shakes out. NjW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.136 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the whoile thing reads like an advert for a shop or two. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable (the only real source is Quackwatch) and promotional, basically an advertisement for a commercial business. No evidence that any of the diet's claims are true, and not notable enough to merge or redirect elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (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.