Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smaller Plate Study

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller Plate Study

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

This was proposed for speedy deletion as purely promotional (G11). This was the nominator's (Jytdog) note:

"yet more promotion by the Cornell Food and Brand Lab; see also Smarter Lunchroom Movement and Consumer Education Foundation. See also what happened in 2017 with six retracted papers and 14 corrections issued after lab was found to be rampantly p-hacking and then hyping their papers, with stuff exactly like this page, in retraction watch here and this buzzfeed story. Wikipedia has been thoroughly abused."

I don't disagree that the article merits scrutiny, but I suspect it would be better to get a little more input than (in effect) the opinion of the speedy nominator and the deciding admin, so I'm putting it up for discussion.

It's true that Wansink and his lab are very much up for playing the promo game, apparently even including compromising the results (appropriately they've been having a hot 18 months of it; see the above links). But it should be noted that this study in particular has, to my knowledge, not been called into question yet. Hence I don't think one could go after the article from a bad/fraudulent science angle. Is the study notable? For what it's worth, I believe it has received enough demonstrable secondary coverage to qualify for an article. Is the article too promotional? Hard to say; I would lean No, seeing as various comments and criticisms are dealt with in the "Effectiveness" section. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This page is an unambiguous piece of advertising filth dumped into WP. This is what academics marketing their research looks like. There is not a single MEDRS source in this whole stinking thing, but it makes tons of health claims. Even cites the Daily Mail for pete's sake. Not to mention press releases and successfully-provoked hyping mainstream media. Most of this garbage was dumped into WP by Roxydog13, Thurston312, Jen4noble and Jychao each of which is a SPA account that has done nothing but dump exactly this kind of academic spam promoting Wansink into WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an article on an academic paper which received some fluff articles and per Jytdog is written to promote the article by SPA's. SportingFlyer talk 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while some individual studies are indeed notable, my searches do not indicate that this is the case here. Considering the COI issues, as well, this is a definite delete. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I think we your say out loud the names of the articles related to this one, at Coin, they sound slighly Dysopian, all to control eating. Weird. scope_creep (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this could be summarized in a small sentence on the discredited researcher's article. Natureium (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2018 (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.