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 Nutrition per ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Outline of nutrition

Outline of nutrition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This new page lacks any sources. Are there sources out there that discuss "outline of nutrition" as a topic? Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment please see Wikipedia:Outlines. ‘Outline of Nutrition’ does not need to be notable as a topic in itself. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Outlines is a creation of the editor who has been pushing these pages on the project and may not reflect policy. This is just another form of list and I've been advised that lists must be shown to be notable and have refs even when the articles on the list are referenced. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There are hundreds of outlines on Wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedia outlines and Portal:Contents/Outlines). I suggest that you try get a broader consensus on this if you are proposing that all, or a large amount, should be deleted. MarkZusab (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There are hundreds of outlines, which lead to such an uproar the wikiproject was almost abandoned. Consensus is built by precident at AfDs. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that consensus is built by precedent at AfDs, then I encourage you to look at past AfDs of outline articles. I've gone though several pages of deletion discussions of outlines and there is a precedent of keeping them. If you doubt this, feel free to look at a list I compiled at User:MarkZusab/outlineAFDs or look for yourself here. MarkZusab (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge to Nutrition. The majority of these links are already within the text of that article or in its see also section. Yes, that section is rather large, but I don't see this outline as being a helpful addition rather than redundant or excessive. With a number of links (including the sugar substitutes, freezer burn, and herb) not even being closely related to nutrition, I see no reason why this needs to be a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplication of nutrition but lacking refrences. This lack of references creates problems. For example, should dieting be described as the "essence of nutrition"? Not according to nutrition. Are Advanced glycation end-products a "General nutrition concept"? No. Is the Food and Drugs Act an organisation? No. Is Fructose a "sugar substitute"? No. Is the list of "polyunsaturated fats" complete or are important ones missing? Who knows? Polyunsaturated fats doesn't inform us. Is alcohol a sugar? No. Would deleting improve the encylopdia? Yes. --Pontificalibus 13:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Nutrition as proposed above by Reywas92. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2019 (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.