Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Fast

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fast

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

Poorly sourced, and appears to be not notable. Bramble claw x 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly sourced and seems to be OR, maybe even an essay of some sort. But either way, doesn't belong. Jmlk 1 7 01:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing OR with no real sources. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because many of this article's supposed claims, such as the claim that this is "observed by Jews" is a violation of WP:NONSENSE, WP:OR and looks like WP:MADEUP. IZAK (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Please note that this discussion was closed after four hours and has only just reopened, so the seven-day clock should be reset to start from now. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that none of the editors joining in the pile-on deletion feeding frenzy above has given any explanation of what is wrong with the hundreds of sources found by the Google News, Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination. Let's conduct deletion discussions on the basis of evidence rather than prejudice and guesswork. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep. Appears to ~~fail~~ [meet] Wikipedia's notability standard.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the sources spoon-fed in the nomination in making that determination? Phil Bridger (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, and for that I apologize. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - will change my view after someone interested in the subject looks it over and give it a rewrite, as this article in it's current state it reads very much like a synopsis of a book instead of an article about a religious tradition. The tradition itself may be notable, this article does not establish this in it's current state.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the sources linked above, this type of fast does exist and has been the subject of several books and news articles (although when you look at the article links, many of those seem to be about people named Daniel Fast, so I am not sure there are really that many potential sources.) It seems reasonable that someone nominated this for deletion in light of the fact that in almost three years, nobody has shown enough interest in the article to actually put any of those sources in the article. In the event this article is kept, it should be limited to what the sources say. In reading through some of the sources, there is support for the idea that some Christians have adopted this, but I did not see any evidence that anyone else has. In fact, for most of this article's existence, the first sentence or two mentioned only Christians as having adopted it. I have therefore edited the intro to go back to that idea and to improve the wording somewhat. Neutron (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to "Daniel fast". For the most part, a Google news archive search returns enough sources to show notability (there are some unrelated hits concerning speedy athletes named "Daniel" and the like), such as [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. It ain't Ramadan, but it's well-known enough for its own article. Mandsford 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: AfD was closed bewteen 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) and 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This puzzles me. The article is stunningly sad, but the Daniel fast is highly notable. There is, in reality, a true Daniel fast, supported by medical and scholarly studies. The Daniel fast is far from OR or made up (not to be confused with this article). This article presents a very narrow POV of the subject, leaving me to wonder about a possible COI. Google "Daniel fast" and "church" and you will find THOUSANDS of churches presenting studies of this fast. Seriously, I doubt that you could walk into any Christian church anywhere and not be slapped upside the head with corporate calls for Daniel fasts and 40-day fasts. There are literally hundreds of books written on the subject. I'm not talking about self-published books, but major publishing houses. That said, this article currently does not reflect or present an accurate view of the fast outside of someone's interpretation of the story of Daniel in the Bible. As such, THIS article should be named "Daniel's fast" and accordingly, I can't find any sources to support the content (outside of handing you a Bible). An appropriate article about the "Daniel fast" would present the medical and scholarly studies, presenting a bit of information on how the studies relate to the story about Daniel in the Bible. There are several sources to support an article about the Daniel fast, but in my opinion, this ain't that article. Cindamuse (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph near the bottom of the article that refers to a recent study that seems to do at least part of what you are talking about. How well it does it, I don't know, because I am unfamiliar with the subject. Integrating the information from the study as source material for the article, rather than just referring to it, might be a first step toward the article you envision. Neutron (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially unsourced article with no assertion of notability. This is an original essay, in the final analysis. Just to make sure I wasn't off-base, I made a quick visit to Conservapedia, which is a Bible-driven place, if you follow me, and they didn't have a listing for "Daniel fast" or any mention of a "Daniel fast" in any article... Maybe it's a non-notable neologism or something, but it's pretty clear that this article doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article cited hasn't even been published (though it appears it will appear in the next issue). The "Daniel Fast" may indeed achieve notability, but when the main citation for notability is a single article pending publishing (and yet to be vetted by readers of Lipids in health and disease) the subject might be just too new and too novel to be an encyclopedia entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also am neutral on whether this article should be deleted, but I just want to point out that the scientific basis for this type of fast (or lack thereof) does not appear to be the sole, or even the main, basis for the position that it is notable. If you click on the "books" link above you will find several books that are solely about the "Daniel fast" and several dozen more that mention it. The "news" link contains articles that discuss it. It therefore appears that this is a social/religious/spiritual phenomenon that (although I had not heard of it before) does cross the threshhold of notability. My problem with keeping the article is that, after almost three years of the article's existence, nobody seems interested in editing it to the point where those sources are used to establish the subject's notability. Therefore, I am neutral on the deletion. I also had some other concerns with the content itself, which I think may have been shared by some of the "delete" commenters above, and I have addressed my most serious concerns by editing the article. But if the article is kept, the whole thing is going to have to be rewritten. Neutron (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (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.