Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Head

Fat Head

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}}or{{subst:csp|username}}.

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Fat Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fat Head is a non-notable fringe conspiracy theory documentary that doubts scientific evidence for the lipid hypothesis. I am not seeing any evidence this documentary is notable, it advertises itself as a science documentary but no scientists have reviewed it. Tom Naughton [1] directed the film but he is not notable either (he has not directed anything else), the article reads like a promotion piece.

As it stands the article is in a bad way filled with unsourced statements and unscientific and misleading information, for example "According to the film, among other sources such as Mark Sisson, there has never been a single scientific study that has linked a high fat diet to increased rates of heart disease". Practically the entire synopsis section is filled with unsourced nonsensical claims. The only mainstream source that mentions the documentary and is on the article is from the Houston Chronicle. I do not believe one source is enough to establish notability. The other sources on the article are not reliable sources for information about scientific matters. Lowcarbdiets.about.com for example should not be cited. There are many sources on low-carb blogs or websites advertising this documentary, but no independent secondary sources. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The documentary might be nonsense, filled with anti-science, but that can't be the reason for the AfD. If as you say it is not notable, then that is another story. I only see the one citation from a RS. If the page is written like a promotion then that should not be grounds for deletion, but for a rewrite. I'm withholding my vote until I see if others come up with something more that would prove it's notability, will watch this AfD. Sgerbic (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally was planning a re-write but not possible because no reliable sources can be found. Had a dig around today for about 45 minutes looking. Nothing out there. I would certainly be interested in what others think. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think the film has anything to do with the lipid hypothesis, which is about blood cholesterol and not about a high fat diet. No !vote, I find some coverage, being listed on Cracked.com 6 Famous Documentaries That Were Shockingly Full of Crap will not help here but [2] might. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film is about the lipid hypothesis and also covers a high-fat diet, there is a trailer of the movie on Yotube. If you run a Google search on "fat head lipid hypothesis", you will find articles written by Tom Naughton on the subject. For example, one of his articles on his website fathead-movie.com is titled "Another Big Fat (and old) Fail For The Lipid Hypothesis". As for the piece at healthcentral, it is not a reliable source written by a scientist. The author of that article was a low-carb promoter David Mendosa. I think it is best to cite medical experts on matters such as this. The problem is that the medical community have ignored this movie, there is no reliable coverage. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There just isn't enough appropriately high-quality sourcing available to write a decent article. XOR'easter (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]