From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only independent source cited that is about this "network" is Harriet Hall at Skeptical Inquirer. That doesn't constitute sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a WP:FRINGE group and we need much more and better sourcing to be able to write a verifiably neutral article. Guy ( Help!) 23:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Not so. The "sources" that were added were not about THINCS, they were about the scientific consensus linking saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, which THINCS members repudiate. The only sources about THINCS are namechecks in the two overlapping articles by Harriet Hall. Any "information" about the "controversial subject" was blatant WP:SYN. The applicable guidance is at WP:FRIND. This does not reach that level. Guy ( Help!) 13:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics is mentioned in the "controversy" section on the lipid hypothesis article. I suggest the name be redirected there. I will probably expand that article at some point. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 16:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I would have no objection to a redirect to Lipid hypothesis. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
See WP:ATA. That's not what this is about. The issue is the absence of reliable independent sources about the group. Guy ( Help!) 09:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Cholesterol controversy currently redirects here. Perhaps this should be re-targeted to be about that topic instead. (some recently removed content was on that topic) There's been some evidence that topic has enough coverage to justify an article; I don't see referencing to support an article on this group. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I redirected "Cholesterol controversy" to the controversy section on the lipid hypothesis article. MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 15:24, 18 December 2018 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only independent source cited that is about this "network" is Harriet Hall at Skeptical Inquirer. That doesn't constitute sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a WP:FRINGE group and we need much more and better sourcing to be able to write a verifiably neutral article. Guy ( Help!) 23:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Not so. The "sources" that were added were not about THINCS, they were about the scientific consensus linking saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, which THINCS members repudiate. The only sources about THINCS are namechecks in the two overlapping articles by Harriet Hall. Any "information" about the "controversial subject" was blatant WP:SYN. The applicable guidance is at WP:FRIND. This does not reach that level. Guy ( Help!) 13:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics is mentioned in the "controversy" section on the lipid hypothesis article. I suggest the name be redirected there. I will probably expand that article at some point. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 16:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I would have no objection to a redirect to Lipid hypothesis. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
See WP:ATA. That's not what this is about. The issue is the absence of reliable independent sources about the group. Guy ( Help!) 09:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Cholesterol controversy currently redirects here. Perhaps this should be re-targeted to be about that topic instead. (some recently removed content was on that topic) There's been some evidence that topic has enough coverage to justify an article; I don't see referencing to support an article on this group. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I redirected "Cholesterol controversy" to the controversy section on the lipid hypothesis article. MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 15:24, 18 December 2018 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook