Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guideline Daily Amount


 * 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 keep. While there was much discussion of a merge, there isn't sufficient support to compel a merge here. Feel free to start a merge discussion on the talk page of the article, if interested in discussing that possibility further.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Guideline Daily Amount

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

The article states that this GVA is replaced with Reference Intake in year 2014. The article was created in 2009, and no longer it is notable. It is duplicate of the Reference Intake article. So it is better to delete this article and redirect, no point having duplicate articles on the same subject. Crashed greek (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge This article could be merged into the article at Reference Intake (please see Talk:Reference Intake), with Guideline Daily Amount redirected there. Reference intake itself should be moved over the (recently created) redirect Reference Intake (please see Talk:Reference Intake). Reference Intake is a current system of food labelling in the EU and UK that replaced Guideline Daily Amount, on which it is based. GDA is therefore part of the history of that topic. Alternatively, the GDA article could be kept as a separate historical topic, one which has had influence in a number of countries, not only the EU and UK; and the article on Reference Intake could briefly cover GDA as part of its history. This may be sub-optimal if the topics are so closely related they are essentially the same topic. Neither is the same topic as Dietary Reference Intake in the US and Canada, to which the recently-created Reference Intake currently redirects. Sources:
 * https://referenceintakes.eu/about.html
 * http://www.foodlabel.org.uk/label/reference-intakes.aspx
 * https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-guidelines-and-food-labels/how-to-read-food-labels/#:~:text=Reference%20intakes%20are%20guidelines%20about,required%20for%20a%20healthy%20diet.
 * Whizz40 (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for UK and EU, there is an article Dietary Reference Values regarding it. So this nominated page can be redirected to this page either. Crashed greek (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * DRV is a health guidance system, not a food labelling standard. it's not the same JeffUK (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article for that, Nutrition facts label. Crashed greek (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article on Nutrition facts labels in various countries is a separate topic from the articles on the various labelling systems themselves in those countries. Whizz40 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is not temporary, "Guideline Daily Amount' was a staple of British life, and printed on everything we bought from any grocery store for decades; and discussed at length in scientific papers and the mainstream press.   Reference Intake currently has no reference at all to its use in the UK, At the very least we should merge them to keep the history, I don't see any pressing need to delete this.    JeffUK (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Usage of guideline daily amount is so entrenched that many people use it as a common noun (see a couple of examples in the UK at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guideline-amount). Merging the article into Reference Intake means readers who search for the term (on Google or Wikipedia) as a description of the current system of food labelling will go to the right article (Reference Intake) and readers who are searching for the historical Guideline Daily Amount will find themselves at the right article as well. I think merging is the simplest approach to providing the best encyclopedic reference for most readers interested in this topic, unless it is clear Guideline Daily Amount and Reference Intake are separate topics warranting separate articles. Whizz40 (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As an American, definitely Merge per reasons above. While there is probably not so much to the topic that another article is needed, it would be incomplete for Wikipedia to not discuss it in relation to food labels. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Reference Intake: both topics are notable, but similar enough that it makes more sense to discuss them on the same page. (The existing information mostly needs to be changed to the past tense, but that's the only significant issue.) --ais523 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator claims that "no longer it is notable". Notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP. I do not agree that merge to Reference Intake is the correct way forward.  If it is the case, as claimed, that GDA has simply been renamed "Reference Intake" then the GDA article, as the older, more established, and more detailed article, should be kept and moved to the new title.  Any merge should be the other other way round with a WP:ROUNDROBIN move to preserve the history of both.  On the other hand, if they similar, but not exactly the same thing, a merge to Reference Intake is inappropriate.  I could support a merge to a title that was inclusive of both systems, but that is more appropriately discussed in the merge proposal that has been launched in parallel with this AFD. SpinningSpark 17:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep "no longer notable" is not a valid reason to delete. Concur with Spinningspark above that a decision on whether to merge with Reference Intake and implementation details re: the exact direction and procedure to preserve article history should be left to the merge proposal. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is not temporary. Once notable, an article, or at least its content, remains notable. Historical names are important to retain, in order to retain the historical knowledge associated with that article title. If the content were to be merged into another article then the content would need to be retained in a separate, appropriately named sub-section. However, this is contra-indicated if the content being merged outweighed the pre-existing content in the target article. Comparing Guideline Daily Amount, a Start class article, with Reference Intake, a Stub, I think it is better to have two distinct articles about distinct, though related subjects, rather than one merged article. This avoids having a coatrack article about two different subjects, with undue weight given to the incoming content. Both articles have co-existed for about 8 years now, so I do not see a need for a merger. We are building an encyclopedia, here, not demolishing one by turning useful articles into redirects. If Reference Intake were being proposed for deletion/merging into Guideline Daily Amount, when it was newly created in 2014 then that could have been a different story, but the time to do that has passed. Live with 2 articles. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the above ivoters are correct that notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge and leave Redirect as others notability is not temporary. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2022 (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.