Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Peat

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ray Peat

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

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

Ray Peat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Ray Peat is a man known for having what could be most nicely described as extremely eccentric views on nutrition. If you've ever wondered why so many people dislike seed oils, he is partly a source. He is very popular in niche online communities. None of the sources here evidence notability, and a search found none more. I believe he will probably be notable someday - but not now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Biology, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP - The article seems to be well sourced. The above comments seem to be personal POV of whatever they know about the article's subject and seed oils. If the word "seed oils" were not linked, not everybody would even know what that refers to. In today's world there are numerous individuals publicly pushing their views on nutrition. The article could be expanded, but I find nothing in it that disqualifies it. — Maile (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Maile66 Well sourced - to a substack post, his own two theses, and a one sentence mention in GQ??? The US health source is at least something but that's on the diet not him and fringe-y. Nothing here shows notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - there’s only a single independent and reliable source that covers his works and incorrect ideas about seed oils in detail, a fringe idea. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The nomination and Bearian's !vote have it right. The sourcing, present and available, is ludicrously inadequate. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV for a pass of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2024 (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.