Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar cravings

:{{la|Sugar cravings}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sugar cravings}})

Unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion. Damiens.rf 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you see the footnotes at the bottom of the page? How is this "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"User:AnthonyArger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Arger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:Please, understand that Wikipedia may not be the most appropriate place for you to promote your stuffs. --Damiens.rf 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to answer the question and demonstrate how exactly the article is an "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"? Or are you going to continue to make ad hominem attacks and waste my time? Very important lifechanging information is being conveyed to the world here - who are you, and why do you have such an interest in stopping it from being conveyed? User:AnthonyArger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.155.43 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Now, now, children!" is what I once said to a CEO and a school teacher at a committee meeting I was chairing. Not that I am going to say it here.... (It was effective, though. They stopped hating each other and hated me instead - and we got a lot of work done.) As to the article, as it stands it is somewhat unencyclopaedic in Wikipedia terms. I am also worried about the as yet unwritten bits, whose headings give distinct impressions of Original Research or possible promotion of something (which need not be commercial - ideas can be promoted too, but not here) yet to emerge. (Don't think that sentence would translate well by machine. Don't care, either.) "How To Stop Sugar Cravings: Key Lessons" (my quotes - although there are plenty to spare in the article) is a little bit in contravention of WP:NOTHOWTO before it even gets written. I get the feeling that sugar cravings do exist - or is it low sugar levels? I've had to deal with those and mostly in non-diabetics to boot. However, the PubMed references do indicate that there are researches going on into this area. It cannot totally be dismissed as OR - well, in Wikipedia terms. It is original research by the researchers, but it is published research by the definition here. The article does look as though it is a flier promoting some sort of fruitloopery. (Fruitloopery is used here in the sense found in the 'Feedback' column in 'New Scientist' et al.) It probably isn't, but surface impressions are important. Sorry to ramble a bit - had a hard day and not feeling organised. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• The author [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_cravings&diff=407986538&oldid=407986382 blanked the page], so that might qualify the article for speedy deletion. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, there's some confusing reverts going on in the article. First, the author (and only substantial editor) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_cravings&diff=407985905&oldid=407908306 blanked it]. Then, another user rightfully [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_cravings&diff=407986275&oldid=407985905 G7ed it], but then s/he suddenly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_cravings&diff=407986382&oldid=407986275 reverted back to a version before the blanking], after which the author blanked it again. It seems to make the most sense to go to that version and then G7 it again, which is what I did. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.