Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

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 per positive consensus and the fact the article's references assure that it meets notability requirements. A peek at Google Books [1] further confirms notability. At the risk of editorializing, I found the nomination to be very unusual - I believe that spending a little more time in researching a subject would be helpful before putting it up for deletion consideration. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

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

Non-notable film. Virtually no coverage outside a, local newspaper write up a handful of raw food blogs and a single scientific skeptic blog. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing write ups in two newspapers (already referenced in the article), the Michigan-based Mining Journal and California's Marin Independent Journal. These would seem to demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" making this meet WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 09:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that these two small local papers do not provide evidence of notability. Papers like this often run short pieces on special interest topics, but in my mind a couple of these do not equal notability. --Daniel (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an argument could be made that the number, nature, or quality of the sources doesn't establish notability, but these pieces aren't so short that they don't amount to significant coverage. There's also this segment which appeared on a local ABC affiliate. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 03:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting notability criteria. Plenty of sources available showing this topic notable and article improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 16 January 2013 (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.