Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Earth 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth Diet

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional piece on a lifestyle that does not show how it is notable. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. It was created with multiple references but they were for the most part deceptive (some have been removed). Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. Some are dead but a look at the links suggests more of the same problems. The "critisicms" section is pure synthesis, taking unrelated articles and trying to connect them to The Earth Diet (one article even predates the lifestyle by almost a decade). The only links that verify anything about this Diet are by the creator. I found nothing better. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about The Earth Diet this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second member of a self-promotion cluster that must be nipped in the bud. Citations are stretched to refer to the subject, or simply non-notable; nothing actually establishes notability. complainer (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't there be a workgroup to identify and unravel this kind of cluster? complainer (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite aside from being a dog of an article - it doesn't even describe the diet beyond the most inane generalities - all the refs are either self-published or do not mention the diet. GNG fail. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2012 (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.