Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRON-diet


 * 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 no consensus between "keep" and "redirect". Let us see if the article can be expanded from the sources brought up during the AfD, and if not, a redirect / merge discussion can take place on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

CRON-diet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficiently notable - in particular lack of coverage in reliable-for-health (WP:MEDRS) sources, without which a decent neutral article cannot be written Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, notability and usefulness-for-health proven by MEDRS are two totally different things. A diet might clearly be notable if it is widely discussed in national newspapers, or if it has been the subject of a cult following with all kinds of mischief (documented in reliable sources over the years), or if a mass of gullible celebrities had followed it (and been properly written about), even if the evidence for it were missing entirely, or indeed fabricated. A diet that met WP:MEDRS would be a useful diet, but a diet that didn't could still be notable. So much for the theory.
 * The CRON-diet seems to be based on a proper PNAS paper by Walford; and then followed up by The Anti-Aging Plan, with Walford as a co-author making up 5 of the remaining citations (not so good). But notability depends not on the current state of the article but on what's out there in the world. I see an article in The Telegraph, which would count towards notability. There's one in Slate, too, again, a decent ordinary (non-medical) source, and it mentions that the New York Times also had an article on it.


 * The CRON diet is discussed in a section "Long-term CR interventions in humans" in a 2017 paper by Anna Picca and colleagues in Clin. Interv. Aging; it regrets that "At present, only the collection of data recorded from the members of the Calorie Restriction Society, who have imposed on themselves a regimen of severe CR with optimal nutrition (CRON), believing to extend in this way their healthy lifespan, provides direct evidence that CR may affect the aging process in humans." but after a detailed discussion of the physiological effects concludes that "Effectively, also quality of life improved according to scores from survey on physical component, depression, and physical functioning." A search on NIH found also a paper on CRON and AMER diets and gut microbiota by Griffin et al 2018; it mentions dietary-practice-associated gut bacterial taxa.


 * There is (thus) genuine science behind Calorie restriction, but we already have an article on that; we also have one on the CR Society International which Walford helped to found. So it may be that a merge would be the right answer; or we may feel (given the evidence above) that the diet itself has attracted enough notability in its own right to be worth keeping. I'd incline to that latter view but am happy to discuss the evidence with other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage is required in usable RS. Without it, it is impossible to write an article. WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect: Not notable for stand alone article (modified !vote). Three references; A glossary, search page, and a primary source, are not enough and a search did not show any reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if people feel like that then we should REDIRECT to Calorie restriction. There is certainly enough material for a mention over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with a redirect and modified !vote to reflect this. Otr500 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:, , , . Coverage in medical journals is not required to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: There are no sources on the article that provide evidence of notability and 4 were provided here. As written the article is advertising and has severe WP:NPOV and original research issues. It is a caloric restriction diet.


 * WP:RS. This source discusses "25 percent less than the recommended daily allowance" and makes reference to “starvation diet.” This is nowhere in the article.
 * WP:RS. This reference is passing mention "For the majority of humans, the only way that would happen is if they found themselves locked in Biosphere 2 with CRON diet (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition) pioneer Dr. Roy Walford." but could be used for the negative aspects and CR content
 * This sources plasters a cookies "Express" notice on the page that has to be accepted and shared with partners Google, Amazon Europe Core SARL, IO Technologies, Moat, and Twitter so is forced advertising and I didn't accept.
 * Passing mention and titled The Biosphere 2 "starvation diet", references "team medic Dr. Roy Walford" and states "While his subjects pleaded with mission control for more supplies, Walford — who had been on the CRON-diet for years — maintained that their daily calorie intake was sufficient.". The article states "The CRON-diet was developed from data Walford compiled during his participation in Biosphere 2". This conflicts with the source.
 * The article claims without sources: "The CRON-diet involves calorie restriction in the "hope" that the practice will "improve health and retard aging", while still attempting to provide the recommended daily amounts of various nutrients.". Also without sourcing "Other names include CR-diet, Longevity diet, and Anti-Aging Plan". This is more advertising when only backed by primary sources. Anti-Aging is refuted in at least one supplied extra source and I believe so is Longevity. A main issue is that when all the WP:OR is removed there is nothing so would require the article to be blown up and started again.  Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article was it was PRODDED by who appeared to have done an incomplete WP:BEFORE search (looking only in PUBMED-indexed sources). I did my own quick search and included these as evidence in my DEPROD. I did not improve the article but I gave other editors a head start by posting the sources I found on the article's talk page. This article still needs work but we're not here to delete articles that need work (see WP:IMPERFECT). ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad you contested the "PROD". I don't know about an incomplete BEFORE but the article had already been subjected to a PROD in 2008. I have no problem with an imperfect article. I see two sources out of 7 that advances notability. This is not in my area of interest, and maybe not yours, but "IF" I created the article it would have to be from scratch. It would be from a neutral point of view written to include the concerns of pseudo-science, claims of "starvation diet", and other controversies over claims of health benefits including anti-aging, and longevity of life like the 120-Year Diet. It would include government and private studies, as well as clinical trials concerning a nutrient-rich diet that includes extreme caloric reduction (calorie restriction), providing needed balance.


 * What Wikipedia doesn't need is a one-sided view of a diet that should have any possible risks associated with it to be included so it doesn't appear to be painted too positive. Are there risks? Sure there are. If this can't included then the contents, or mention should be at a location that will, like Calorie restriction. Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you making a WP:TNT argument here (I don't think there's a strong case for that) or just venting about the quality of the article? ~Kvng (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - User:Kvng is correct that the article topic appears to have received WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS (e.g., 1 2 3 ). All other issues raised are basically just page-quality issues which should not be discussed at AFD. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.