Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast-5 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-5 Diet

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

Not sure what to make of this. I believe that the author is Bert W. Herring himself: thentor.com is a website that he made. I also have concerns with notability. I appreciate the reports (or an effort to find them) but find ultimately the COI-SPA and notability concerns too much. The New Raymie (t • c) 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be speedyable G4 because it had been speedied in April. The New Raymie (t • c) 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G4 only applies to pages previously deleted by a deletion discussion (like this AfD). Speedy and PROD deletions are excluded. However, in some cases, the previous tag may apply. ℳono 02:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source seems to establish notability. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. Note that: a) his book is self-published, b) the comments seem like a stuffed ballot box, and c) this is a local article not unlike something I'd read in the Arizona Living section of The Arizona Republic. I recently read an article in the community section about a J-pop star who lives in my home city and attends one of the local high schools (and had a camera crew follow her around) – is that human interest piece an indicator of notability? Probably the ONLY one in the English language (the official site they gave was in Japanese, etc.) but it might not stand up completely. The New Raymie (t • c) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a tossup. The source would generally establish notability, and seems sufficient for a small article describing the diet. I don't really see any reason to say that the source is insufficient, but there is some wiggle room in WP for opinion on this point. I've seen a lot of articles get kept when the sourcing was only this good. And it looks like there might be other sources too even if we can't access them. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable and promotional for the book and diet plan. I'll recommend speedy delete as promotional, but I'll leave be and see if anyone agrees. No the link is not significant third party coverage. Dloh cierekim 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm seeing both sides of this. It is promotional, but it dose show some signs of notability in its sources. The problem is, I'm on the fence if the WP:RS is satisfied. Pmedema (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (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.