Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative calorie food


 * 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. No consensus to delete. Some suggestions for merging but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative calorie food

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

The page has been in this poorly sourced state for years, and I can't see it getting better. Currently it has one unreliable reference. I have looked for sources, and all I can find is crappy diet websites and fluff pieces in lifestyle magazines. It had been redirected to celery, but was just reverted, so I think it's time to decide properly if this is worth keeping. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, nomination withdrawn and support merge. Thank you to VsevolodKrolikov for finding at least a couple of sources - I know AfD isn't clean up, but damn did this article need it. I still don't think we should have an article at this title, but there's material here than can be merged, as Vicarious says. The merge discussion can continue on the article talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I de-proded this article because I felt that one of the sources was good enough that the deletion wasn't uncontroversial per WP:PROD. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. -Atmoz (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep How difficult it is to get sources for an article does not determine whether or not it should be deleted, only it notability. Since the concept has received significant media attention (even if it's only "crappy diet websites and fluff pieces in lifestyle magazines"), it deserves an article. If there is controversy over whether or not negative calorie foods really work, that just means there should be a "controversy" section not that the article should be deleted. Redirecting the page to celery does not work because that is only one of several foods the topic refers to.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Food energy or Thermic effect of food. I do agree with Marcus Brute that there is enough out there where mention of it belongs in Wikipedia, however, I do not believe every concept (or false concept, in this case) needs to have its own article. The article at its longest reads: "A negative calorie food is a food claimed to require more calories to be digested than it provides. Some sources say X, Y, and Z require more calories to be digested than they provide. Other sources say the process of eating any food uses at most 30% of the calories ingested."  What else is there beyond that? To me, that belongs in a subsection of one of the aforementioned articles where the information would be better served by an appropriate context. Location (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete holy shit, someone added back this absurd list of so called negative calorie foods. ill say it again: fruit would not be craved by animals if it provided fewer calories than were used to process it. thats the reason plants produce fruit. this is common sense biochemistry. if someone has not yet found a reference to dispute this common sense observation, then the article is not needed. i know its a widely discussed meme, but a line or 2 in an article on food or calories about this urban myth should suffice.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - article updated I have now edited the article and put in the best references I can find without access to subscription journals. Yes, the idea appears not to be true, but I think it's a notable enough one to have a short article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep a google book search throws up these references in a variety of different health and diet books. (Probably best to ignore the Weekly World News hits) Now I'm not saying either way whether the concept of negative foods is correct or not, but there's certainly enough information on the subject, and the controversy, to make a decent article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a good search, you're also returning hits for "negative calorie balance", and picking up a load of unreliable dieting books. Please pick out some good sources, or focus the search better. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The search gives enough results to show that idea of negative calorie food has some popularity. Obviously, the diet books are going to be unreliable because they support the myth. There's room for an article on this, as there has to have been two sets of research done - one that promotes the idea, one that refutes it. There's books that support the idea. There's enough info out there, and the google book search is part of it :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The current text appears to be a reasonably written and adequately referenced document refuting a frequently encountered hoax.  The concept is notable; the content brief but adequate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be reasonably sourced.  The content is a little lacking but should be pretty straightforward to research and update.  --Tckma (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as de-bunking a well-known urban legend, or if you prefer, fringe theory. The stub is well-sourced and more could be added with a bit for work. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known urban myth.  D r e a m Focus  19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect I agree that it's a real topic (if incorrect) but that doesn't automatically mean it deserves it's own article. Per the length policy, if it's less than 1k (of readable prose) it's encouraged to be merged into another article. Currently this article is coming at about .67k. For those that say it's only that small now but will grow, I contend the only direction for this to grow is a bad one (with the addition of an inaccurate unsourced list of items yet again). Yes, lets keep the content we have right now, but merge it into another article. (I'm open to ideas about which article, possible candidates include celery, Food energy or Thermic effect of food. Vicarious (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (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.