Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some simple and good 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 A10. Peridon (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Some simple and good diet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a webhost for advice on nutrition. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Personal essay on the author's own thoughts on nutrition. Just no. Updated to speedy delete for WP:CSD of healthy diet. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTESSAY, and would have duplicated Healthy diet in spirit anyway.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 18:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The content has been copied verbatim from some "BerkeleyWellness.com"'s articles (violates WP:C policies). While Berkeley Wellness can be argued that could pose as a valid secondary source, the Wiki article itself doesn't add significant value to the topic of nutrition science, human nutrition, diet, or healthy diet. In the actual form, the wiki article is an honeypot ready to be vandalized by supporters of pseuso-sciences and quackery associated to nutrition. On top of that, Berkeley Wellness is a collaboration between the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national team of writers and editors, plus they rely on researchers at UC Berkeley, and as well as top scientists from around the world; so far so good, they are a reliable academic source, backed by respected mainstream publications, but they host original contents too, which cannot be counted as reliable sources by WP:V policies. Toffanin (talk) 11:34, 11 July 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.