Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fasting and longevity


 * 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. This is a dreadful mess of a discussion, in which consensus has not emerged and is unlikely to emerge. As such I'm closing it before it gets further out of hand. The arguments to delete are, as follows: that this article is redundant to others; that it's entirely original research; and that there is no scientifically demonstrated link between fasting and longevity, and we should therefore not have an article. These are largely all poor arguments. Redundancy is best solved by merging, not deletion. An article that is entirely original research would be deletable, but there is obviously some properly sourced content here. Finally, the veracity of a popularly held belief has very little to do with its notability: nobody has put forward evidence that there is a demonstrated link between fasting and longevity, but we can still have an article documenting the myth that that belief appears to be. Conversely, the arguments to keep are also weak; when there are concerns about multiple articles covering the same material, the existence of sources isn't enough; the need for a standalone article needs to be demonstrated. I strongly recommend, though nobody is bound to follow this recommendation, that attempts be made to organize the material with the entire set of articles in mind, rather than just one page. It is likely that AfD isn't the best venue for this. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fasting and longevity

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There has been some issues from this article right from the very start (see talk-page). It has now been expanded but the problems remain. Firstly most of the sources on the article are primary sources so they are not in accord to Wikipedia medical guidelines (they go against WP:MEDRS), secondly the books cited are self-published. For example, AuthorHouse and Blue Rose Publishers (references 5 and 6) are self-publishing companies.

I would also point out that 2 of the sources are primary papers written Valter Longo, he has a lot of fringe views about intermittent fasting that are not supported by the scientific community. Another issue is original research. Reference 8 is a paper on caloric restriction. Caloric restriction and fasting are not the same. We now have an article discussing fasting, caloric restriction and intermittent fasting. It is a mess mixing several different topics. I believe the article should be deleted and/or redirected to fasting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the above assessment stating that "We now have an article discussing fasting, calorie restriction and intermittent fasting... - a mess mixing several different topics", with no WP:MEDRS reviews, government advisories, or clinical guidelines used in the stub (because none exist). The calorie restriction article has this section covering all that can be said about longevity with sufficient review sources - a redirect of the stub to this section is reasonable. There is no clinical evidence to support having a unique article on fasting and longevity. On the talk page, particularly under the "Stub" subhead, I provided applicable critiques remaining unresolved due to the absence of adequate sources. Zefr (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to Calorie_restriction. It is our obligation to seek WP:ATD since it is an actual policy. This is a notable topic with SIGCOV available but the article has been edit warred/erased by editors who seem to WP:OWN the MED topics, (see article talk page). I have been shocked by the insults which were directed at me for daring to write an article about this subject. When SSIGCOV exists (like it does for this topic) I see an encyclopedia article. I offered to redirect as a compromise on the talk page but it was rejected. I do not watchlist anything, so this AfD is a surprise to me - I was not notified on my talk page. Bruxton (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your version of the article was citing entirely primary sources and studies done on mice. We require stronger medical sources as Zefr has explained to you. I apologize for not notifying you about the afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment this is the wrong place for the discussion. This clearly isn't a deletion dispute about a single article, it's a concern that there are multiple overlapping articles, and some editors are trying to put information into articles on an obviously notable topic, that other editors don't agree should be there (i.e. it's a content dispute, not a deletion dispute). It should be dealt with via a request for comment, and if that fails, dispute resolution. Then, when everyone's agreed what we want to say, we can choose which article titles to use to say it, and turn the rest into redirects. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a valid deletion discussion. There is no point in keeping the article in my opinion. It is currently a stub, we already have an article on fasting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 *  Keep, but move to Diet and longevity, and make into a subsection of a more substantial article . There is no question that there is notable coverage of suspected links between diet and longevity (and numerous articles on diets claimed to increase longevity, e.g., Okinawa diet, CRON-diet, The Longevity Diet, Hunza diet). Fasting is just one form of diet. BD2412  T 13:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Diet and longevity" has 44,100,000 results on google. So that might be a good suggestion. Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * By comparison, searching "Earth is flat" produces nearly one billion results on Google, so what can we say about that vs. "diet and longevity"? Public curiosity and misinformation should not be the basis of a Wikipedia article on fasting for human health and aging – a MEDRS-based topic. None of the above "diet and longevity" articles has sources strong enough to meet WP:MEDASSESS, indicating there would be few good-quality sources in such an article, and no sources worthy of a systematic review or meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (which do not exist). The Flanagan source concludes with a 2019 NIH plan to begin studying the effects of long-term (5 years) calorie restriction (CR) on people during aging, stating "CR will not be ready to be prescribed as a long-term nutritional intervention for healthy individuals, particularly the elderly." The US National Institute on Aging (NIA) makes no suggestion that fasting can lead to longevity. This is the only NIA assessment of CR or fasting on aging, stating "There are no data in humans on the relationship between calorie restriction and longevity ." Conclusion: what would an article on "diet and longevity" say? Zefr (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An article on diet and longevity would say exactly that. There are numerous diets traditionally claimed to affect longevity to various degrees, and a paucity of evidence in support of these claims. If sources document that the claims are made we can report that the claims are made without needing proof that the claims are true (just as we can have an article on the Loch Ness Monster without proving that such a monster actually exists). BD2412  T 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The three parameters proposed for possible linking to longevity in an article or subhead title are fasting, calorie restriction, and diet. Fasting and diet should be excluded due to inadequate sources outside of MEDRS, whereas calorie restriction is a valid research topic. A WP:MERGE of the current content and redirect to Calorie_restriction may be a reasonable compromise. Zefr (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Article was clearly created to get onto the wikipedia front page, via a DYK hook, without regard for the merits of the topic. Very poor article full of WP:OR. Very cynical manipulation of good faith editors. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please AGF Roxy the dog. I start articles on a variety of topics when I find Sigcov. Google "fasting and longevity" and you get 10,400,000 results. About DYK, I nominate virtually every article for DYK and I am very active there. I spent time studying this topic and I also wrote an article for Valter Longo's book The Longevity Diet. I write articles about what I am interested in. We have to see this project as collaborative effort and not one where a small group of determined editors can control every article in their area of interest. Bruxton (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep As per notable topic and WP:SIGCOV. Poor rationale for deletion RV (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not solely to promote a positive image of a topic. Even if a topic has negative aspects, it may still be considered important to maintain an article on it. Thanks RV (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to improve the article is it true or a slogan only?

March 2023
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Fasting and longevity, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can. WP:ATD If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. And I am trying to do that only. RV (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This topic will never be a "great" Wikipedia article, as it has no WP:MEDRS sources, nor will it within the next decade or longer. Please stop trying to make more of a poorly-researched, poorly-sourced topic by synthesizing your own interpretation. Zefr (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right that this topic will never evolve, especially when nobody wants it to. You are stopping the fixing of it and reverting edits [| like this]. Please enlighten us as to how this particular edit is poor, off-topic, self-interpreted, and synthesized when there is a source. The information provided by the source is what it is, and your personal dislike of it does not hold any significance WP:Verifiability RV (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what the text in source reads: "The hope of dramatically extending our lifespan has captivated humanity for millennia. Over the last two decades, the biology of aging has matured as a field of study and led to greater engagement and investment in aging as a biological problem that can be understood at the molecular level." And when the article says For thousands of years, mankind has been fascinated by the aspiration of prolonging human lifespan. In recent years, significant advancements in the study of aging biology have led to increased investment in comprehending the molecular mechanisms involved in aging.  . Thanks RV (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't it related to the longevity of humans? RV (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have sent a message to Zefr after they twice erased RV's comments here (I collapsed them). It is my hope that Zefr will allow the community to reach consensus without being disruptive at the article and this AfD. Consensus is one of our policies. Edit: they again returned to alter comments at AfD and I have sent another talk page message. Bruxton (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, Bruxton is deceitful to a) suggest that RV's talk page discussion is somehow related to consensus-building on the AfD evaluation. Rather, they were inserted conspicuously to be a forum against a challenge about WP:SYNTH editing by RV - WP:NOTFORUM; and b) indicate in the collapse heading that I am preventing improvements to the article by RV or anyone. I said my comments to RV were a "warning for offtopic content and WP:SYNTH", as shown in the edit summaries. Bruxton has been warned for deliberately introducing false information. Zefr (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In regard to the above text that was put onto this afd that started with this edit this is very odd behaviour to be moving content from users talk-page to an afd. The only content that should actually be here is comments about the afd such as to delete or keep the article. Zefr is correct about removing the off-topic text. I think an admin should remove it all. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is best to just let the community process work. Zefr has been uncollegial. They have now accused me of vandalism (on my talk page). For Zefr's part, they have performed 6 reverts to the article involving three different editors, and that does not include the complete erasure of the article; also several reverts in this this AfD. It seems that no editor is free to work on the article without Zefr's approval. I have tried to avoid adding to the article since my last edit there was immediately reverted by Zefr. Reverts are decidedly jarring and uncollegial. I believe that the community will get to the right outcome in spite of the histrionics. Psychologist Guy, you should not be encouraging this behavior. Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment An editor who comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions clearly indicates a sense of ownership WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. Continuous reverts are hindering any improvements to the article The Heymann Standard.

My argument regarding edit summaries that mention cherry picking, WP:SYNTH, or WP:OFFTOPIC is as follows: As per WP:WINAC It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. An article on the anatomical feature Adam's apple could explain that the term arose from the biblical character Adam; a regurgitation of the Book of Genesis, or an outline of the full story of original sin would not be necessary.
 * When discussing the topic of "fasting and longevity," it is necessary to mention the human aspiration for a longer lifespan, studies on animals, different diets, as well as the potential harms of fasting on both physical and mental health. It is important to consider the various factors that can impact human longevity, including diet and lifestyle choices. Studies on animals have shown that fasting can have a positive impact on lifespan and overall health. Similarly, research on different diets, such as the Mediterranean diet and the Okinawan diet, has also shown potential benefits for promoting longevity and improving health. However, it is also important to consider the potential harms of fasting, both physical and mental. Therefore, to fully explore the topic of fasting and longevity, it is necessary to consider all of these factors. You can revisit and verify that I have consistently organized all the information related to those factors under separate headings or sections in the article. Kindly also read What SYNTH is not. Thanks RV (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no good clinical evidence for fasting and longevity, we simply have no long-term data. Valter Longo is very much on the fringe of science. Most of his data is taken from animal models (on rats mostly). WP:MEDANIMAL "in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings". Please see WP:MEDASSESS, animal models are the lowest and weakest kind of evidence. They may provide some mechanistic data but they give no clinical evidence relevant to humans. You can often tell a kook or quack because they just rely on animal models then make far-fetched claims about human chronic diseases. In conclusion you have not really added any reliable sources to your article. It would be best to delete the article. We already have an article on fasting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested by User:BD2412 that a more comprehensive title, "Diet and longevity," may be more suitable for the article. It is important to consider various perspectives and make a decision that is in the best interest of the article and its readers. The suggested title has a wider scope and may provide a better representation of the content. Thanks RV (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-starter. There are no WP:MEDRS sources to support linkage of any dietary practice/plan or food(s) with longevity. Neither are there MEDRS sources to support linkage of fasting or even calorie restriction (a controllable experimental factor) with longevity. Time to put this discussion to rest with a delete decision. Zefr (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it even possible, then, that the articles Okinawa diet, CRON-diet, and Hunza diet exist seperately, when each discusses the respective diet in connection with purported longevity? It doesn't make sense that those articles can exist separately, but an article discussing the claims of those existing articles can not. BD2412  T 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the key word there "purported", i.e., not science-based? Those diets and the purported causation of longevity fall within the category of longevity myths. The Okinawa diet is the best-studied among the three listed, but it is a historical dietary pattern related to mid-20th century eating traditions, not a present-day dietary practice leading to longevity; the article neither contains nor needs MEDRS sources, as it discusses history.
 * Creating a new article about "fasting and longevity" perpetuates the myth that fasting is associated with longevity. What reliable sources could be used in an article discussing unscientific, misleading claims of diet plans causing longevity? None exists, so deletion is the solution. Zefr (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so what? We can have an article on the various diets that are "purported" to increase longevity. We would need MEDRS to support any claim that these assertions were true, but not to assert the existence of the beliefs (folk or otherwise). So long as we have in the lede the statement that there is no proof of efficacy (for which we do have MEDRS sources), we are not misleading anyone. As for fasting, as far as I'm concerned that is just another kind of diet. BD2412  T 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that could be handled by a redirect with one sentence: "Some diet plans involving reduced food intake, such as x, y, and z, purport to extend lifespan, but there is no clinical evidence for such claims."(example refs: Lee, Flanagan) Zefr (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be too certain. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information on all branches of knowledge. "Diet and longevity" falls under the scope of WP:FACTS. There are enough sources that support studies related to the topic of "Diet and longevity". You cannot delete it simply due to your personal dislike.Something obvious to you, may not be to someone else. If we add this topic and link other related myths and diets to it, such as the Okinawa diet, CRON-diet, and Hunza diet, it will make more sense to the reader. RV (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed many of these unreliable sources are found on the Longevity section. Instead of recreating another article, the already existing section on the longevity article should be fixed and expanded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It can be agreed that the topic of longevity and diet holds potential, as there are numerous diets that could be further explored within this topic. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to create a separate and independent topic that focuses specifically on longevity and diet, while ensuring that the section Longevity is properly sourced and organized. RV (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator laments that this article had "issues right from the very start", and that expansion notwithstanding, "problems remain". Right, along with 6,000,000 other articles. Content disputes are not dealt with by deletion. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it permissible to seek assistance from different forums, such as [| this], even if the discussion has been adequately conducted in AFD, and with different edit summary? Isn't that considered Canvassing? Please allow me to seek some clarification. I sincerely hope that my inquiry does not cause any offense, and I wish to assure you that assigning blame is not my intention. RV (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Calorie restriction per WP:MERGEREASONs #2 (overlap) and #3 (short). Sennalen (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2023 (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.