Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culinary coaching


 * 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 delete and redirect to Lifestyle medicine. The consensus was clear to delete. I took the liberty of creating a redirect while closing to make attribution easier.  So Why  12:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Culinary coaching

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very obvious self promotion of an academic, and the academic's associated program. Would need to be rewritten from scratch; probably can't b/c this appears to fail GNG with respect to there being independent sources with substantial discussion of this "field". Might deserve a mention in Lifestyle medicine. But not this; this needs to go. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

*Comment - I would like to see this article listed for discussion somewhere where the Food and Drink WikiProject can see it and participate. This may not need to be a medical article. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC) *Another comment - Here's the deal, this topic and article possesses commercial information that is available from minimally-trained people. But training and education is also provided at the University Level from a multitude of graduate schools. In addition, I have found one review article that describes this topic (see the talk page of the article). Another source is from a medical professional society (.org). I have trimmed the article and it is now a stub. Somehow I am not optimistic about this article surviving this deletion discussion, but I will improve as much as possible. I'm pretty sure that is a good faith effort to provide information for readers. It is probably important because readers will benefit from this article so they can differentiate the 'charlatans' from the clinicians. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  19:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete because a page making the claim that "the first evidence of a health related culinary program (i.e. (a) culinary program ... aimed at improving how people eat through home cooking) was in 2001" is obviously talking claptrap. Humans have been teaching other humans to eat more healthily for years beyond reckoning. It sounds like somebody just came up with a new 'buzzphrase' to describe the practice. Famous  dog   (c) 06:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment confuses me. The claim is not about "teaching other humans to eat more healthily" for the first time.  The claim is about "the first scientific evidence" about whether teaching people to cook improves their health?  Are you aware of any scientific evidence on this subject that pre-dates 2001?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your confusion confuses me. The version of the article I reviewed said nothing about "scientific evidence", it simply said "evidence." Famous  dog   (c) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand that reading. If you dig through the cited source –, in this case, which User:Doc James will wish to note is a narrative review, and which additionally cites the systematic review  about this subject – then you'll find that the "evidence" is a 2001 scientific journal article.  So they're actually talking about scientific evidence.  If it were fiction, we'd complain about the in-universe language.  ;-)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotional (WP:PROMOTION), non-notable (fails WP:GNG, i.e. I can't find mention of it in The Guardian), generic name that is not specific enough to be about a particular person or team. If about a full doctor that is notable enough and their projects, should probably have a separate article about the person.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My news search is similar to yours. I got a couple of hits at Google News archives, but nothing obviously helpful.  OTOH, there seem to be a couple hundred books that use this quoted phrase (but not all of them are this subject; some of them use the phrase to describe advice on how to cook without any connection to health).  I think that part of my problem is that it's hard to understand why this should be separate from nutrition counseling.  It currently seems like "You had a stroke.  You need to eat less salt, so lay off the salty processed foods" (nutrition counseling) and "You had a stroke.  You need to eat less salt, so lay off the salty processed foods and here's how to cook with less salt" (culinary coaching) are pretty much just variations on the same thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's confusing, this article made me survey a bit the coverage of various related and somewhat related concepts, like community cooking (I didn't find the exact article for this, if any; cooking a large meal together so everyone can enjoy and/or bring some home), Cooking school, Nutritionist, Nutritionism, Healthy diet, Dietitian)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete zero reviews regarding the topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Zero reviews" is not the same thing as "zero notability". Review articles in academic journals are not the sole kind of source that confers notability, or we'd have to delete almost all of our articles about books, films, sports, people, businesses, etc.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting lobbying here, WAID. This page blatantly hypes an academic program, which is in turn a pretty crass repackaging of existing stuff into something sexy and perhaps grant-fundable. This is the kind of thing where I imagine that grant reviewers rejected a grant saying "this is not a thing" and in that scenario this page would be an effort to answer that. (we actually had a distinguished astro-scientist desperate to have a WP article about themselves - they had wanted to be appointed to some board and some board members had actually said "gee you don't even have a WP article.. I don't know....")  But this page is clearly a gravitas-building exercise. That is not what WP is for.   Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics), which is an effort to require articles about academics such as your distinguished astro-scientist to be verifiable in WP:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been mentioned at WT:FOOD. — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the academic babble and academic self-promotion and written everything this article had to say in plain English. There is no "there" there. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So it turns out that we've all been searching with the wrong keywords. There are sources for this idea, including some recent ones whose PubMed tags aren't complete. There are multiple such programs (some brand names: ChefMD, Chef Coaching, CHEF program, Healthy Cooking and Lifestyle Center, Food Pantry and Demonstration Kitchen, and The Goldring Center for Culinary Medicine) and no agreement about exactly what to call it (Quotation from the review :  "Proponents of health-related culinary education are suggesting different labels for this area such as "culinary nutrition" or "culinary medicine" (CM). A recent manuscript suggested a definition of CM as "a new evidence-based field in medicine that blends the art of food and cooking with the science of medicine." However, there is still no consensus with regard to terminology, and useful definitions still need to be established by the larger medical and culinary communities.") It's also important to remember that this is not primarily a "scientific" subject. Notability is not limited to scientific evidence. This subject has been reported in consumer health media (e.g., Scientific American's Consumer Health, aka ) and discussed in opinion or whither-the-future-of-medicine pieces (e.g., ) as well as other sources that describe what it is (e.g., and ). Some of these were even cited in the article, before Jytdog blanked most of it. Dodger67 accepted this from AFC and may wish to comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because the "generic" idea is a notable and encyclopedic subject, even if the specific individual program might not be.
 * is a review apparently by the person who created this article who yes, appears to be on a campaign to have this neologist wrinkle on nutrition seen as a Shiny New Thing. See Nutrition. Teaching people how to cook, as well as what to acquire, is part of nutrition advice and guidance, and has been since forever. Per that article.  Per this US govt program. Per Sylvester Graham.  There is no unique "here" here, topic-wise. Just academic marketing.  Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup should be redirected to the standard thing. We see many examples of people trying to create a new name for something for which we already have an article under the standard name. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

*Comment - synonyms will need to be added in this topic because there seems to be quite a few. This will take more time than just a few hours to sort through all the material. The article may need to be renamed. I need suggestions on how to reference the commercial entities who claim to provide this training without actually sending readers to their websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara (WVS) (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you want to name entities. We are not a directory or a HOWTO guide. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A WP:MOVE proposal might be appropriate. If we already had any articles on the general subject, then we could just merge this one into it, and be done.  But we don't, so I think the best approach is cleaning up what we've got.  WP:Deletion is not clean up, and the general subject is clearly notable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is not covered in Nutrition already. It could just be directed there but even that would just be empowering this exercise in academic marketing. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can see how it's "not covered" in that link because, well, it's not actually covered there? The word cooking doesn't appear anywhere in that section.  There is not a single sentence about teaching people to prepare food anywhere in there.  "We teach schoolchildren about the USDA's food pyramid" is present, but "We teach sick and at-risk people how to cook" is just not there.  Please do provide a direct quotation if I missed it, but I just read every sentence in that entire section, and I did not see a single one that said anything about cooking.
 * Could this idea be shoe-horned into that 10,000-word-long article? I'm sure it could.  But that article ought to be built in summary style, with links out to the Main articles, and then this content would need to exist on another page anyway, which means that we'd have to create this page all over again.  So I see little point in deleting it, especially since the article started off with more than a dozen citations, and it's been demonstrated on this page that the general subject is discussed in multiple books and multiple recent review articles (i.e., exactly the sort that MEDRS approves of as the ideal for claims about scientific evidence).
 * On a more meta note, when I read comments that dismiss this subject, e.g., as merely an "exercise in academic marketing" (don't you think that a marketing project would have used their trademark instead of a generic, uncapitalized name?), I feel like you are trying to punish an inexperienced editor for starting this page, even if that comes at the cost of getting verifiable information to readers. We can strip promotional language out of an article by editing it.  We can broaden an article that mentioned one program by discussing multiple similar programs.  But we can't get verifiable information on a notable subject to our readers by deleting everything about the subject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

*Comment and request -I would like feedback regarding the continual deletion of content from this article. You are welcome to discuss this on its talk page. Primary sources are used to define the topic, which is appropriate. No clinical content is being added at this time. It is getting difficult to improve the article when so much content is being removed. Thank you. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  17:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been invited to comment, so I took a good look at the article in its current state; I have no firm opinion about the page's salvagability or otherwise. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you removed one of the few good refs we have in this diff. About this diff, that was somewhat incorrect.  I'll note that the announcement of the pilot webinar for the proposed CME elective says the webinar will be taught by none other than... R. Polak, who as discussed above, does appear to be on a mission to make this a Thing.  And as discussed above, that is not what WP is for. There is no difference in policy between abusing Wikipedia to publicize some new medical condition like Retained Blood Syndrome, or to publicize a proposed new medical speciality.  WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the American College of Preventive Medicine might sponsor an event where an author of a paper is invited to speak. It isn't necessarily Polak who is making this a thing but a professional medical society. I am not understanding why a medical society can't offer education for physicians? In good faith we have to assume that there is sufficient editorial review for all the sources referenced. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm packing up my toys and going home. I fold. I have better things to do. The point is to help readers discern charlatans who aren't trained from the clinicians who are trained. Polak is irrelvant. The exact opposite will happen when this article is deleted and those searching Google will find the charlatans (who am certain also sell herbal remedies) instead of the clinicians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The point -- of all of Wikipedia  -- is our mission to communicate accepted knowledge. That's it. We are not a marketing vehicle for anything. There is all kind of content in WP about a healthy diet, nutrition, etc. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't go home, . I'm not sure what to do with your article yet. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This article was not written by Barbara; it was written by a brand-new editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge into Lifestyle medicine. It saves the search terms, but doesn't publish original research, yet allows us an easy out, without harming new editors. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A selective merge is a good option. I thought Culinary coaching can be merged to Lifestyle medicine. The AFD does not prevent an editor from mentioning it in the Lifestyle medicine article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 08:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * as mentioned in the nomination, this can be mentioned in lifestyle medicine giving appropriate WEIGHT in the target article relative to other aspects. i have done that. This can be deleted. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what is Culinary coaching from reading one sentence. The text needs to explain what "Culinary coaching" is and mention it by name. That can be done soon or after a redirect and close of the discussion. Giving the appropriate WEIGHT will depend on the quality sources or lack thereof. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "culinary coaching" is not a thing. Somebody came to Wikipedia trying to make it into a thing. That is an abuse of Wikipedia that we have no obligation to follow. Indeed we are obligated to push it out. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A source called it "culinary medicine". It is like a new slogan for Lifestyle medicine. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again it is just a rebranding of what nutritionists and organizations like the USDA have done for a very long time. You are citing the chief promoter there. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a new way of marketing what has been around for ages. It was created by an account who only made contributions to one article.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am convince that, since it already has been merged by, it can be safety deleted. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jytdog's merge. L3X1 (distænt write)  04:08, 6 September 2017 (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.