Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation

Seed oil misinformation

[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!

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)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This article is so one sided and created with an agenda. It should be deleted. Sydpresscott (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • Here's another source from the American Heart Association calling the claims bunk [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)