Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foods with a low glycemic index


 * 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 the list and redirect the pyramid article to glycemic index. There is a clear consensus to delete the list. However, Mandsford correctly points out that many participants in this discussion seemed not to address the article on the pyramid. On the other hand, a couple of keep recommendations for the pyramid article were based on the nominator's lack of clear rationale, which isn't helpful for determining the merits of the article once it's been listed in good faith; the other argument for keeping the pyramid article was that the existence of a broader article doesn't preclude it; this is true, but that doesn't justify directly why the article should exist. I'm left with Arkyan's rationale for redirection as the strongest argument for deciding what to do with the article. Whether any content from the history is merged into glycemic index is up to editorial discretion. There is also no prejudice against turning glycemic-index pyramid back into an article if sufficient reliable sourcing is found; no one addressed whether that material might actually exist. — TKD::Talk 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of foods with a low glycemic index

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a cross between an unverified list and an "advice" page of unreferenced dietary and medical information. The topic is covered with greater authority in Glycemic index and references contained therein.

Also nominating related page



Dbromage [Talk]  06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC) LDSC
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —  Dbromage  [Talk]  07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions.   —  Dbromage  [Talk]  07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   —  Dbromage  [Talk]  07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both. The existence of the GI article does not seem to preclude existence of sub-articles. 'Low GI' can be precisely defined, and reliable lists of such quantities have been published. Lack of referencing should be fixed, and editing is needed to remove the how-to aspect. Espresso Addict 08:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to refocusing the list as List of common foods by glycemic index, as suggested by Eleland. Espresso Addict 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the list, redirect the article about the pyramid back to Glycemic index. The list seems to be more a collection of statistical information per WP:NOT and is unverified.  That "low GI" can be precisely defined does not mean that it is - and selecting an artitrary number to define it would be POV on the part of the editors.  The article on the pyramid doesn't really introduce anything valuable that cannot be contained at the parent article - although if more encyclopedic material about it can be found, I've no objections to it having its own article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete / Redirect it's one thing to have, say, a List of common foods by glycemic index which could be a valuable resource, but this is uncited listcruft and may constitute medical advice (bad!). Eleland 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not think we should be sorting food by the compounds they contain.  Not a health guide Corpx 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the list as subjective. Merge/redirect the pyramid back to Glycemic index. Otto4711 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears as listcruft to me. TheInfinityZero 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed violates WP:NOT. And another point what is considered "low?" -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both No reason at all is stated for the nomination of Glycemic-index pyramid other than it is "related", and this piggy-backing attempt seems to have failed, in that most people seem to be referring to the article "list of foods with a low glycemic index" in their comments. Voting "keep both" as a protest against trying to kill two birds with one stone.  Mandsford 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Coment Piggy-backing articles is a valid method of finding community consensus on related articles. This is not a vote anyway. Thin Arthur 08:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the list and redirect the pyramid to Glycemic index. This is not a medical advice site. Thin Arthur 08:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the list per Espresso Addict. The list is already informative and will be more so when the GI is actually given. Low GI is a likely search criterion for foods and helps understand the concept. "Low" is currently undefined but renaming per Eland would solve that. Alternatively an arbitrary cutoff is acceptable for lists, e.g. List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Speedy keep the pyramid; no reason has been given for deletion. Kappa 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: How low is low? The article requires specific criteria for inclusion of items in the list (based on a definition from a reliable source). See lists. --Coppertwig 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The main article defines low GI as 55, I'm not too sure what their source is. Kappa 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only merit in such lists is to identify missing articles, but essentially there are none. Categorise and delete Peterkingiron 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlike lists, categories can't have arbitrary inclusion criteria, see WP:OCAT. This list also has the merit of giving the actual GI in some cases. Kappa 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect per Eleland. Han-Kwang (t) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (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.