Talk:Michael Greger

The sources in cited in NutritionFacts do not provide coverage that satisfies the requirements of WP:SIRS in terms of depth or independence. The paper is from a Frontiers Media journal. The organization is not independently notable from Michael Greger, and therefore should be merged there as an alternative to deletion. There have been multiple independent attempts to blank and redirect NutritionFacts to Michael Greger , all of which have been reverted by one user .

Pinging @ULPS, 45dogs, and Jan-Pieter Schoot:. JBchrch talk 11:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Seems like an obvious case so I would support a merge and trim. Bon courage (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a merge, the org just isn't independently notable. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

From my check, , , and appear to be the only articles that actually mention the organization, and are reliable and independent. Of these, one is a pretty plainly trivial mention, one focuses on dr. Gregor, and one gives actual significant coverage. As such, I support a merge. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the reasons highlighted above. Veg Historian (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  DO NOT SUPPORT: Many people work at NutritionFacts.org not just Dr. Greger. https://nutritionfacts.org/team/ and they now also have another doctor that narrates the videos, Kristine Dennis PhD, MPH. Merging would make her work and the rest of the teams work seem unimportant. I suggest keeping the 501c3 non-profit NutritionFacts.org separate. 70.108.25.84 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You are correct in theory but there is lack of independent sourcing for Nutritionfacts.org so it is not possible to have a stand alone article per Wikipedia policy. Veg Historian (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I added many sources to the Reception section on the Nutritionfacts page highlighting instances where the website specifically (not Gregor) is cited or recommended as a source of information by some of the top publications and health institutions in the United States and beyond. How is that not adequate? Pandarye (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I could review the sources added, and create a source assessment table, if that is fine. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Pandarye, a lot of the sourcing you added was only a passing mention of NutritionFacts . For example this source you added cites a quote from NutritionFacts about the surface area of the gut. This doesn't help establish notability of the organization and is trivial information that is not going to help improve the article. This is why you have added a bunch of sources but not gone into detail about any of those sources. This looks like a desperate attempt just to add references. You also mentioned Mayo Clinic and cited this source which says "For more detailed information on nutrition recommendations, check out The Nutrition Source website from the Harvard School of Public Health and NutritionFacts.org". This is a recommendation, again trivial. This is not the sort of sourcing you can build an entire article around. The merge is a sensible option due to lack of coverage. Veg Historian (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I added the sources because the main criticism here is that the organization isn't independently notable. I was helping make the case that it is by offering examples of major institutions (e.g. The Guardian, USA Today, CNN, Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic) referring to and recommending the website as a source of information (its main purpose) independently of Gregor and the website. Would it need to be on the cover of Time Magazine? It just seems like it's being unfairly scrutinized. Pandarye (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It's also recommended in Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets on page 1976 as one of the "professional and consumer websites for vegetarian nutrition" that provide "high-quality educational materials upon which [nutritionists and health care practitioners] can rely", but I have no idea whether all these are enough to establish notability. Probably not if every mention is in passing. Daisy Blue (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Pandarye, just because a news source may make passing mention of an organization on one of their articles does not mean they are 'recommending' the website. All the news sources you added did not describe any details or history of the website. As above, this was only passing mention. The truth is that NutritionFacts is not evidence-based or considered a reliable scientific source by most in the field of dietetics or medical profession so that is why independent sourcing is lacking. Veg Historian (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)