Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential nutrient

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essential nutrient

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

non notable subject; lack of WP:MEDRS sources establishing notability Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "essential nutrient" is used throughout the medical and scientific literature. Google Scholar finds many thousands of articles that use the term. A PubMed search finds thousands of articles that include "essential nutrient" in either the title or the abstract. Essential nutrient is linked from dozens of other Wikipedia articles. I don't think the argument that this is a "non notable subject" is viable. There appears to have been problems with prior versions of the article (the text of which has recently been removed) which may have conflated multiple meanings of the term or included original research, but surely there is a way to write a WP:MEDRS-compliant article on this topic. ChemNerd (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide WP:MEDRS sources that back up you assertion? Best case scenario is that it's a content fork and warrants a redirect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS is not the right policy for determining which topics have sufficient notability to warrant Wikipedia articles. It is therefore not relevant to the outcome of this AFD. Even if there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that define the topic, the Wikipedia article should be descriptive and inform the reader about the ways that non-MEDRS-compliant sources use the topic. There is no reason we can't have articles about layman's terms that do not have MEDRS-defined medical/nutritional meanings. In other words, an article does not have to have MEDRS-compliant sources if it is not making any biomedical claims that require MEDRS-compliant sources. ChemNerd (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS is the policy that defines the sources that should be used to create the article. If there are no MEDRS compliant sources, then there is nothing to base the article on and hence its existence is not merited. The fact that the phrase "essential nutrient" appears in a Google or PubMed search does not establish notability. A search phrase is not the same as a definable term with a recognized academic meaning. It's akin to searching for the phrase "essential component" and then arguing that because the phrase appears on Google/PubMed, and article on Essential Component is warranted for WP. The terms "essential amino acid" and "essential fatty acid" have well-defined and widely recognized meanings; "essential nutrient" does not. It's merely a WP:CFORK of the other two terms. I put the challenge to you -- find a few high quality MEDRS source that define and discuss "essential nutrient". If that can't be done, then the article shouldn't exist. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChemNerd. This is a standard concept in nutrition science. — J D (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you provide a link that establishes notability and a definition? This shouldn't be a theoretical discussion; let's see WPMEDRS sources please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the nominator summarize why they've gutted the page of all content in the weeks prior to this nomination? — J D (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material in the article that did not refer to "essential nutrients" was removed and subsequently, it became obvious that the article had been cobbled together using irrelevant sources and that the topic was non-notable. The article was poorly executed WP:SYNTH and a WP:CFORK of essential amino acid and essential fatty acid. Another editor nominated it for deletion,[1] and I continued the process. What might be called for is a redirect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest we redirect to? There are many essential nutrients. PriceDL (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect page that includes essential amino acid, essential fatty acid, vitamin, and dietary element would be an option. What do you think? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Vitamin. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cursory notability search. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate or keep, perhaps broaden if we keep. No redirect and no deletion, IMO. There are way too many things that "essential nutrient" is used for, both on-wiki (the ones mentioned by Rhode Island Red) and off-wiki. Including non-human non-medical usages. Searching for "systematic review" OR "meta review" AND "essential nutrient*" on Google Scholar gives enough material to discuss a number of different examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.