Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udo's Choice Food Pyramids

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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udo's Choice Food Pyramids

Non-notable quackery. Delete Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I couldn't find any reliable sources that satisfy WP:V requirements. --Goobergunch|? 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and per Goobergunch. The only source is a commercial site. Both WP:V and WP:N are problems. Tim Ross 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Udo Erasmus has a PhD in nutrition so he isn't a crank, and there are many reliable sources that mention him [1]. Why not merge this article to main article about Udo Erasmus? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JoshuaZ. I created the article. I haven't found third-party sources mentioning the Food Pyramids specifically, but there are scientific articles about the health benefits of essential fatty acids, providing support for ideas on which the Food Pyramids are based. I've put a link to an example of one such article at Talk:Udo Erasmus. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no problem with a merge as long as it can be written in a scientific point of view. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is not an edit-on-demand service. If you want this content merged elsewhere, please just do it. Then come back and recomment redirect to target-x. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this AfD is closed as "merge", I'm willing to do the editing work of merging it. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: re "delete per nom" votes: The nominator has stated in a comment "I have no problem with a merge as long as it can be written in a scientific point of view.".

Furthermore, the nomination statement says "quackery", definitions of which include the concepts of fraud, dishonesty, pretending to be a doctor, ignoring scientific findings etc. I do not believe that Udo Erasmus has done any of that, and no evidence of such has been presented either here or in the articles about him; in fact, he cites scientific findings in his book. Some of his ideas may be unproven or partially unproven; others are established scientific fact; but discussing speculative or (as-yet-)unproven ideas does not constitute fraud. The nomination itself could perhaps be considered a BLP violation. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Coppertwig. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No sources, no reason it should stand alone. Merging is not essential: the article on Udo looks in pretty good shape, but I don't object to the idea either. Mango juice^talk 19:15, 24 January 2008 (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.