Talk:Muesli belt malnutrition

Geography stub?

Why is this article a geography stub? Might as well be an astronomy stub, cause it sounds like the Kuiper belt... ACookr (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It is actually about popular nutrition. I will delete the geography tag. Ben (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Time period? Geographic location?

It would improve the article if the time period that Prof. Marks wrote his book was included. Also, it would improve the article if the geographic location that included the Muesli Belt was specified. I would assume the 1980's or 1990's for the time period and SE England or possibly upper income areas of Greater London for the location.--TGC55 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevance? Notability

Is this still relevant today? The name for the phenomenon is from a book that's 10 years old, and as the article indicates it is a non-existing phenomenon. Not sure that it's worth keeping.

Notability is not temporary - if the topic was notable or relevant enough to deserve an article in the past (e.g. 10 or so years ago when the book was published), it's notable enough to deserve an article now - even if events since have indeed revealed the phenomenon to be non-existent. For example, Piltdown man is now known to be a hoax, and the existence of Phlogiston has been thoroughly refuted. That doesn't mean the Piltdown man or Phlogiston articles should be deleted. It just means that the articles should discuss the fact that the theories are incorrect. Likewise here. One purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to people who hear a topic mentioned in other contexts and wish to know more. We do a disservice to readers, who may have come here from 10 year old books and articles, if we expunge all record of it. The only reason to delete the article would be if the topic was never notable in the first place - but that lack of notability doesn't come from being old, or being disproven. -- 141.39.226.228 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)