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 Speedy Keep‎. No actual deletion rationale has been provided. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed oil misinformation

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

Seed oil misinformation (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)

I am nominating the article Seed oil misinformation for deletion due to significant violations of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, particularly in the title and the overall tone of the article.

  1. Title Bias: The title itself, "Seed oil misinformation," is particularly problematic and presupposes that any concerns or criticisms about the oils are automatically "misinformation." This is inherently biased and frames the entire article in a way that dismisses opposing views. A more neutral title would not take a definitive stance on the issue before even addressing the content of the article.
  2. One-Sided Arguments: The article is primarily focused on discrediting the health concerns surrounding the oils and conveys the message that opposition to the oils is part of a conspiracy. This fails to acknowledge that there may be legitimate health concerns raised by some experts or individuals regarding the oils, including their potential role in inflammation and metabolic issues. This one-sided perspective also neglects to address concerns that industry or food processors may be putting the interest of profits above public health.
  3. Dismissal of Legitimate Health Concerns: While the article casts doubt on health claims against the oils, it does not provide balanced coverage of the scientific debate. By labeling all criticisms as "misinformation," in the very title, the article skews heavily in favor of defending one side, ignoring the fact that some health professionals and researchers have raised legitimate concerns about the high omega-6 content, the harms of consuming easily oxidized oils, and the potential negative effects of consuming certain vegetable oils in excess.
  4. Not a Neutral Presentation of Information: A neutral article would present the arguments for and against these oils without taking sides. Instead, this article seems intent on portraying the entire opposition as 'misinformation' or conspiracy-driven, especially considering the title, without giving due weight to evidence or legitimate concerns raised by those on the other side of the debate.

In conclusion, the title and content are both so heavily biased that simple editing may not be sufficient to bring this article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. For these reasons, I propose deleting this article. If editors believe the topic is worthy of coverage, it should be rebuilt from the ground up starting with a neutral title and perspective that fairly represents all viewpoints. ~ Mellis (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



For context, this article was initially PRODed by User:69.123.64.3(1 October 2024), for the following reason: Neutral Point of View. See Discussion at Talk:Seed_oil_misinformation~ Mellis (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the premise of this AfD is strongly flawed. ignoring the fact that some health professionals and researchers by this logic, HIV/AIDS denialism, should be called "HIV/AIDS controversy" because some health professionals and researchers supported this position when the majority of the scientific community didn't. During COVID misinformation was widely spread by medical professionals like Peter A. McCullough. That didn't mean it wasn't misinformation. This the appeal to authority fallacy which ignores the sources in the article which say that the expert consensus is that "seed oils" (as nebulous as that category is) are largely safe and that the current claims are misinformation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's another source from the American Heart Association calling the claims bunk [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @User:Hemiauchenia Its very important to point out that the credibility of the AHA is significantly questioned and doubted in this topic due to its significant corporate funding, particularly from processed vegetable oil producers. The American Heart Association receives incredibly significant funding from corporate interests, for this reason the AHA is a biased 'authority' due to their source of funding. The American Heart Association (AHA) has received funding from processed vegetable oil producers, including Procter & Gamble, the maker of Crisco and other processed oils, in 1948: The AHA received $1.75 million from Proctor & Gamble.[2][3], The AHA then recommended that people replace butter with vegetable oil or Crisco. More recently Bayer, the owner of LibertyLink soybeans, pledged up to $500,000 to the AHA. [4] Food manufactures pay the American Heart Association to show the AHA logo on their packaging. The food manufacturers push profits into the AHA every single day though this mechanism. The AHA is not credible source of information on this topic as they are significantly financed by these corporate mechanisms where the food industry pays AHA to endorse their processed foods.~ Mellis (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        "Its [sic] very important to point out that the credibility of the AHA is significantly questioned and doubted in this topic due to its significant corporate funding" ← this is just howling conspiracism of the type that infects the antiscience movement, and any sources (if there actually are any) 'questioning and doubting' the AHA for this reason are from fools. While Wikipedia might report on stuff like this (see Big Pharma conspiracy theories) its policies prevent it from indulging them, Instead we reflect what reputable WP:MEDORGS like the AHA say as accepted knowedlege. Bon courage (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the title, Seed oil controversy was changed to Seed oil misinformation per this diff. Also, remember that WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, meaning that the weight given to viewpoints are to be reflective of their overall ratio among reliable sources, not simply fifty-fifty coverage.
This article looks like it intends to describe a fad diet (see its inclusion in the Fad Diets template as a high-carb diet), but doesn't have very much information on the rules or rationale for it to be a diet, even as it goes about rebutting them. The section on hexane is a good example. It says, without a citation, that proponents call the oils hazardous because of solvents, and then has four citations debunking that vaguely summarized claim. The article on the Paleolithic diet is a good example of NPOV for a fad diet, laying out the principles, health claims, and medical research around it. An article titled Paleo diet controversy or Paleo diet misinformation would be better served as a subsection in a main article, such as at Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects.
A follow-up question is whether the seed oil claims (or diet) are cohesive and notable enough to have a page dedicated to them. It's hard to confirm notability when what is being argued against is unclear. Azn bookworm10 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is one sided and contains sources that dont corroborate the information in the body.Sydpresscott (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on basis of obvious notability of topic. Perceived bias in article content or title is not a reason for deletion. The talk page where these things should be sorted out is thataway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a topic. The article is a collection of miscellaneous false beliefs that people have held about seed oils. We don't, and shouldn't, have an article listing miscellaneous false beliefs about football players. Maproom (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: NPOV is not valid deletion rationale per the above, and it lends little credence to your arguments to post an LLM-generated dot point list. Additionally, the article is called seed oil misinformation—that is to say, there is no implication that the article decries legitimate concerns, only that it discusses misinformation. If there are legitimate concerns that you feel are unfairly classed as misinformation, you should point this out on the talk page instead of nominating the article for deletion. pluckyporo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as others have said, the deletion rationale seems to have been largely generated by an LLM which raises significant questions whether any human editor even entirely supports it, i.e. do they support that everything said is actually a problem with our article based on their understanding of our policies and guidelines? But anyway, even if it's not LLM, most of the points there even if entirely correct, the reasons listed are not valid reasons for deletion but cleanup of various kinds e.g. WP:RM and just general editing. It's hard to argue WP:TNT applies. So if there is no valid deletion rationale given in the opening, I can only go by the other supporters. User:Sydpresscott makes the same mistake as the opening rationale. User:Maproom's rationale at least is a valid reason for deletion. But I'd disagree that it applies here. It's clear from the sources that seed oils are a prominent target of misinformation such that many sources have address said misinformation. So this is much inline with Vaccine misinformation, COVID-19 misinformation, COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, 5G misinformation, Misinformation related to abortion, Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, Climate change denial etc. I don't believe the same applies to football players which is a very vague term anyway. (I assume we're at least talking about what is sometimes called soccer rather than other weird sports sometimes called football most of which rarely apply feet to the ball, but still are we talking about professionals or anyone who plays the game or what?) Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Health article and the GQ talk about this issue, seems to pass notability. Could perhaps use a rewrite, but AfD isn't clean up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Honestly, if you're worried about the neutrality of the article, you don't delete it, You should rewrite it, that's literally the point of a wiki... Bring corrections or updates to the article by editing it, yourself. And please don't use LLMs, they don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seed_oil_misinformation
No tags for this post.