RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Intuitive eating

Intuitive eating | Result: Overwhelming 10-0 deletion

Intuitive eating (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. (This is a continuation of a discussion on the talk page). Have a look at the citations, a few are papers that, on the surface, appear legitimate, but there are a few too many to https://www.intuitiveeating.org/. This article is promoting pseudoscience, not refuting it. Christopher (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
2. -Hastur! (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Reads like an ad for a fad diet. Get rid of it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Article was written by someone who couldn't even properly read one of their own references. ("Intuitive eating is negatively associated with BMI"≠"correlated with lower BMI". *headdesk*) It looks like "intuitive eating" isn't 100% pseudoscience particularly perhaps for treating eating disorders such as binge eating, but "intuitive eating" may suffer online from "framework scope creep", in this case where "intuitive eating" supports flat-out anti-diet attitudes in social media. Not very mission oriented either way. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
6. It seems rather woo-ey. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
7. One thing to keep an article that isn't the greatest, but if it is promoting pseudoscience then it is probably too problematic to keep. Plutocow (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Fucking woo. Kill it. Spud (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
9. Fucking ass woo pushers... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
10. Unsalvageable promotional woo in it's current state. Anyone is free to recreate the page without woo pushing if it's relevant to the mission, which it seems to be. But woo pushing just has no place here. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 01:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Goat

• A copy of the text should be kept somewhere in case someone wants to improve the article, but I am not voting "keep" because it is clearly a very inappropriate article even by my standards. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  If someone wants to write a good article on the subject, they won’t be helped at all by the existing one. Our “everyone is a sysop” policy means it’s very easy to get a copy of a deleted article, even if you’re not a sysop yourself yet you can ask someone else to copy/paste it somewhere. Christopher (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)