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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seed cycling[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is a novel synthesis from primary sources combined with unreliable sources. I have searched for seed cycling diet and seed rotation diet and cannot find any sources that would pass WP:RS, so while it undoubtedly is a fad diet, it does not appear to be a notable fad diet that is covered in any reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that Good Housekeeping was a reliable source for the existence of the fad. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I have now found a whole two RS which discuss it, as a lifestyle bullshit thing. However, I have also removed great globs of WP:SYN from the article and most of the references there still don't actually talk about the claims made by proponents. Consensus appears to be: no evidence. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is in much better shape, and two RS are whatever you think evidence that the fad exists and has, however much people despise it, been noticed. And it's interesting to see an AfD nominator announcing consensus, specially while presenting evidence to the contrary. It'll only take one or two more usable sources and this'll be an obvious keep. I've chopped some more fluff and added a ref to The Telegraph. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a Reception section; the press are interested but healthily sceptical. I've quoted and cited New York magazine's The Cut and Shape magazine, who both get experts to make critical comments about the diet. It's certainly a thing, and as such is notable, however. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got to agree with Chiswick Chap: quite a reasonable amount of coverage from non-Kool-Aid sources. Thanks for heavily pruning the fluff, both of you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2019 (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.