Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy 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 keep. John254 02:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Healthy diet

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The whole subject of what a healthy diet is, is by nature a subjective one. This page is never going to be more than a list of people's opinions on the matter. Either that or (god forbid) it will just become a direct copy of the official guidelines from the US. 212.248.169.208 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – An article that is well referenced – well written – linked to several other articles – and has been around for almost 4 years. ShoesssS Talk 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems a useful article and it does mention in the opening paragraph diets depend on the individual and can vary widely. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title is subjective as stated and the list of references are not specifically citing any of the actual content any how.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because the addition of sources to this article pre-dates the existence of the &lt;ref&gt; syntax. As can be seen from this November 2005 version of the article the article originally had links between the source citations and the content that the sources being cited support, using the template system that was what we had at the time.  Editing has, over the intervening 3 years, damaged every single one of those links.  Deletion of the article doesn't fix that, however.  Nor is such damage a reason for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sorry are you saying to delete because the title is subjective? In addition, concerning your second remark, I agree the references are not inline sourced, which is easily correctable, but have to disagree they not only specifically cite but also are linked to the actual source.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Clearly verifiable and notable. E.g. -Atmoz (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We have much better general articles on nutrition--perhaps there is place for this sort of cursory summary, or perhaps it belongs in another wikiproject. DGG (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources aren't placed correctly, but that is problem that can be overcome by editing. There's several encyclopedic topics that contrast opinions. These can be backed up by scientific research. A group of opinions can be reported on in a subjective manner (there's a policy that says we should give different viewpoints equal 'screen time' and we wouldn't have that if having multiple opinions in an article makes it deletable). - Mgm|(talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (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.