Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant-based 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure) &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 06:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC) &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 13:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Plant-based diet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scope of this article overlaps completely with Vegetarianism which is set up to be the overarching article on this topic. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * delete it overlaps with vegetarianism article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now added information to the article that distinguishes it from vegetarianism. bd2412  T 13:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, however as Jytdog indicated Vegetarianism which is set up to be the overarching article on this topic, so while you have made edits it might be best to just have "vegetarianism"...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, we should delete Economic system, because the article on Communism discusses all of the economic systems, and can be set up as "the overarching article on this topic". Also, there are dozens of incoming links to plant-based diet which will be broken if the article is deleted, and which are not necessarily about "vegeterianism". Who is going to fix those? bd2412  T 14:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would do - it is important to me that WP is "meta-edited" well - that articles fit together in a thoughtful way. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A plant-based diet is a thing that exists and is discussed independently in reliable sources, distinct from vegetarianism, even if the article on vegetarianism mentions non-vegetarian plant-based diets. Per the description in the sources, a person can have a plant-based diet where they eat steak and pork chops on an occasional basis, without any intention to transition to another kind of diet from that. Such a diet would not appropriately be called "vegetarianism" even though it is based on eating plants. bd2412  T 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The main part of the body, "Variations" completely overlaps with Vegetarianism; the sentence you added could just as well go in that article. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think someone who eats a small proportion of meat in their diet solely because they do not have access to meat is a "vegetarian"? bd2412  T 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi BD2412, I won't be one of those AfD noms who argue endlessly, but I'll respond here since you asked me a direct question. Yes I do think they could be described that way.  I also think there are several places where the Vegetarianism article could do with further discussion about that (e.g. the Economics and diet section.  If this article were to be focused on the relationship between poverty and diet (which does lead to more eating of plants), in my view that would be a legit article.  But again that is content that should start in Vegetarianism and be split out once it grows too much... Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment is correct in stating that a plant-based diet is distinctly different from vegetarianism or even semi-vegetarianism. Those are both practices rather than diets and much research equates low meat-intake diets with vegetarianism when looking at populations in countries with traditionally low meat consumption such as India or Ethiopia, but they are distinct. I see this was expanded upon today, and with a little more expansion I can support a keep. That said I wouldn't go through AfD anyway and if it isn't expanded we should just merge it. --  CFCF  🍌 (email) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Overlap or scope-clash is not a reason to delete. The title for this page seems reasonably common in the literature - see papers such as Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet, Consumers' readiness to eat a plant-based diet or Effects of plant-based diets on plasma lipids.  As there is a family of diets of this sort, we should expect to have multiple pages about them and a general overview such as we have on this page seems helpful to the reader. Andrew D. (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here is an obvious reason. Suppose I were to chain you to my basement wall for a few months, and in that time feed you beans and cabbages and almonds and beets three meals a day, with a three ounce chunk of brisket or a half a hot dog once per day. Would you then be practicing vegetarianism, under any sense of practicing vegetarianism as described? No. But you'd have a plant based diet, yes? Pandeist (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We require adherence to WP:MEDRS when it comes to medical-related articles. That means we can not have articles without references, and there is a risk this article would be without references if we picked off the list section. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't medical-related. At least, not more than cabbage is. Pandeist (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We require adherence to WP:MEDRS when it comes to medical-related topics. Feel free to request MEDRS-compliant refs to medical statements (even in the article "cabbage", by the way :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. We require MEDRS for statements about biomedical information, just like we require BLP for statements about living people.  The overall topic is irrelevant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I expressed myself a little clumsily (tired).-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that MEDRS also are demanded for non-biomedical information, in effect strangling a lot of agricultural subjects. The Banner talk 18:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * keep - valid subject, references clearly possible.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because contrary to the deletion rationale, it doesn't overlap completely with vegetarianism, as is made clear in the lede. If anything, it needs expansion to better cover the significant proportion of the World population who follow a (largely) plant-based diet by necessity rather than choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but stop calling it a dab page (ie remove the dab project banner - it's already lost its dab template): it isn't one. It's a useful referenced article about the concept of "plant based diet". Pam  D  22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this really confusing. If you take the time to read the Vegetarianism] article it talks about all the things that you all are saying here, including diets that include some meat.  The articles do overlap in scope 100%. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your confusion confusing. You seem to think it appropriate to call a person who eats meat and intends to continue eating meat (but can't always obtain it) a "vegetarian".... Pandeist (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't really know how the sources are using these terms, but based on what the articles say, a person who eats sugar cereal for breakfast, egg salad on white bread for lunch, and macaroni and cheese for supper, with chocolate and full-sugar soft drinks in between, would be following a "vegetarian" diet but not a "plant-based" one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you seem to be making a case that is a more narrow version of vegetarianism, . Others here are saying it is a broader category.   the Vegetarianism article says quite clearly "Individuals sometimes label themselves "vegetarian" while practicing a semi-vegetarian diet,[10][29][30] as some dictionary definitions describe vegetarianism as sometimes including the consumption of fish, or only include mammalian flesh as part of their definition of meat,[9][31] while other definitions exclude fish and all animal flesh" - this is part of what I mean, by people don't seem to be dealing with the vegetarianism article that actually exists.   Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly allow me to qualify: I am a vegetarian. I move in the circles of vegetarians. So I understand what it is to be a vegetarian. And so it seems odd that anybody would insist that we would discuss exclusively as "vegetarians" people who eat meat, and like eating meat, and do not consider themselves to be any kind of vegetarians, and who do not necessarily apply any ethical consideration or even health consideration to what they eat. By your calculus it would seem we ought to eliminate as well the page about herbivores (and opportunistic omnivores even) and simply call them all vegetarians. Would you consider aphids for example to be vegetarians? Or better described as having a plant-based diet? Pandeist (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but all that is irrelevant in WP - WIkipedia isn't written based on personal authority. And yeah I kind of figured that is where you coming from, instead of what sourced content in our articles say...... sorry. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is your sourced content claiming people who eat meat and enjoy eating meat and do not consider themselves vegetarian and do not apply any vegetarian principles are in fact vegetarians? I'm fascinated to see such a source. Pandeist (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I think that all of us are collectively making the case that vegetarian diets and plant-based diets are different – not broader, not narrower, but just different. You could have a plant-based vegetarian diet, and you could have a non-plant-based vegetarian diet; equally, you could have a meat-eating plant-based diet, and you could have a non-meat-eating plant-based diet.  Neither diet is a proper subset of the other.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Then let this be SNOW closed. - I withdrawn it any case. I said I wanted to get the community's thoughts, and here they are! Thank you and I am sorry for having taken up your time. It will be interesting to see how this article unfolds. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2015 (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.