Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metabolic typing

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. Majorly (hot!) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic typing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable by virtue of lack of reliable, non-trivial, independent sources. Phrase returns many Google hits, but essentially all are promotional in nature and not independent. Article currently reads like an advertisement; without such independent, reliable sources it cannot evolve into a neutral, encyclopedic article. Propose deletion unless/until such independent, reliable secondary sources can be found. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It looks like quack pseudoscience to me, but it cites some references, so it meets the inclusion criteria. I share your concerns for neutrality, but I won't opt for deletion on that basis alone. YechielMan 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I hear you, but check out the references. One is a broken link, and the other two are diet books promoting metabolic typing. I don't think we can write a neutral, encyclopedic article without reliable secondary sources, and I think it fails WP:N for that reason. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is another article about organizations or products or systems which uses common words and a minute amount of generally accepted background information to justify an article about their use in a proprietary sense. We've had these about exercise programs, and food supplements. "Metabolic typing (under the healthexcel approach" from the section helpfully titled "More" is being more candid than usual. Any references mentioned in the article are either proprietary system-specific, or too general to be relevant. DGG 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Google scholar found two or three independent scholarly articles, together with the original book and a larger number of fluffy-looking popular press items, on this subject. But for balance the article should also include some mention of critical analysis such as this. —David Eppstein 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policies. See, for example, Dr. Revici's approach to Cancer: a Metabolic Typing perspective. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. June 1, 2004. Eat yourself thin. And fit. Why your kitchen is as good for you as your gym Are you protein, carbohydrate or "mixed"? Metabolic Typing says we're all different on the inside - it's "a handbook for the body". Independent on Sunday (UK) January 4, 2004. Metabolic typing quiz Toe to top. Scotsman. January 16, 2001. -- Jreferee 05:42, 25 April 2007 (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.