Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole food supplements


 * 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 merge to Dietary supplement. I wouldn't know what, so I'm just redirecting. Please merge any relevant content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whole food supplements

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

Subject is non-notable, the content in most cases has nothing to do with the topic, there are no relevant references, and the term "whole food supplement" doesn't even appear to have any objective meaning or standard definition. Recommend deletion; it's irreparable. See WP:NOT and WP:N. Consensus of everyone who has contributed on the talk page  seems to be that the article is nonsense. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: Food supplement can hold this distinction without difference. Ultimately, it is a distinction without difference, but there is no accounting for what some people will set store by.  Thus, even though it is nonsense to take a smushed up saw palmetto frond for your prostate instead of the active ingredient, the food supplement world contains an enormous population of people who, in the pursuit of "natural," will do the most unaccountable things.  That said, there is by no means evidence nor popularity enough to sustain an article on this particular fraction of a fraction of a population's pet theory.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Food supplements are not considered to be whole food supplements. The notion promoted by vendors of whole foods supplements is that they are better than food supplements that consist of USP-type isolated nutrients. The value in elucidating this topic is most likely that of clarifying a very fast-growing murky area of misinformation in the dietary supplement industry. "Whole food supplement" products at this time, according to industry statistics, have reached top-selling status by selling what amounts to "natural religion" rather than nutritional science. See the large product bays in any large natural food store nation-wide to confirm the popularity. Providing unbiased, independently published scientific information that shows that whole food supplements provide lower than optimal doses, while making a claims of superior absorption that are contrary to published science can help people make better choices. Nutrinut (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.53.241 (talk)


 * Merge and redirect to Food supplement: “Whole food supplement” simply isn’t a notable concept. We can’t say what the term means because it has no recognized definition. It exists only as advertising lingo used by a few minor supplement products, some of which seem like snake oil. It is, as Utgard Loki's said, a “particular fraction of a fraction of a population's pet theory.” I agree in principle with Nutrinut’s comment: “Providing unbiased, independently published scientific information that shows that whole food supplements provide lower than optimal doses, while making a claims of superior absorption that are contrary to published science can help people make better choices” The problem is that the subject of “whole food supplements” is so non-notable that there don’t seem to be any good secondary sources that have commented on it. It’s hard to justify keeping this article, especially in its current state, given the absence of reliable secondary references, operational definitions, and overall notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Dietary supplement. I agree with the above comments that this is an insufficiently well defined term to stand up a separate page but there is sourced, mergeable content. BlueValour (talk) 02:38, 17 April 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.