Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimum Daily Intake

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 delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Daily Intake (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 does not appear to be a notable term and is not used by health organizations or regulatory authorities. Aside from the book used as a reference for the article, a Google search doesn't turn up much more than blog hits and other non-notable uses of the term (and these uses may not even be the same definition in some cases). Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. It's mentioned in more than this book. I could care less what Google has on it. - Star6763 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Notability no proved. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• You're not supposed to use that template unless there are suspicious votes. Do you have a case, or are you just going to try to discredit me because its a new account? You claimed it was not notable after 5 references were provided to the article for notability. So now they're listed here also. - Star6763 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 5 books that provide notability.

• Lieberman; Bruning (2007), The Real Vitamins and Minerals Book (4 ed.), Penguin Group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
• Gerson; Walker (2001), The Gerson Therapy: The Proven Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses (Reissue ed.), Kensington {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
• Balch (2002), Prescription for Nutritional Healing: The A-to-Z Guide to Supplements (Prescription for Nutritional Healing: A-To-Z Guide to Supplements) (2 ed.), Avery Trade {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
• Ottoboni, Alice; Ottoboni, Fred (2013), The Modern Nutritional Diseases: and How to Prevent Them, Vincente Books {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
• Hulea (2008), An Introduction to Vitamins, Minerals and Oxidative Stress: The Role of Micronutrients and Reactive Oxygen Species in Normal and Pathological Processes, Universal Publishers {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

• Keep - Author of page. Provided references. - Star6763 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)— Star6763 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - a poorly written, non-encyclopedic article with links to books on quack cancer remedies like the Gerson Therapy - the horror! but these might be surmountable problems if "Optimum Daily Intake" was a recognized standalone term that was established in reliable sources; it isn't. So, delete. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; we already have coverage of the better-known terms around RDA &c; this article is at best covering an inadvertent variation in wording, at worst opening the door to WP:FRINGE content. bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RDA/RDI is obsolete for a guide, and ODI was to address that. RDI is still listed on nutritional labels, however its the amount to prevent deficiency. It's not fringe, whether or not that one source was. Star6763 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term may be used in a few books, but I'm not sure it's being defined the same way in each case. In the absence of any authoritative source that determines ODIs, such as the way that RDAs are, or that ODIs are used in notable ways such as on nutrition labels like RDAs, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RDAs are obsolete. RDIs replaced it, RDI is new newer version of RDA. Both address the minimal amount required for health. Again, Neither address better health. ODI emerged shortly after RDI. The books all refer to the same ODI. Not being on a nutritional label does not make something not notable. Lazy argument, considering what you mentioned has already been covered. Star6763 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2013 (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.