Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutritional losses due to food processing

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional losses due to food processing[edit]

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

WP:OR. The first source 404s and I can't get a find an archived version. The second source contains a table where the article's information seems to have come from. The problem is the source lists nutrient loss for specific foods cooked in specific ways; The article lists losses in non-specific "food" and doesn't mention what way it is cooked. It is oversimplified and misleading, presenting as fact, something that depends on the type of food, the method of cooking and the cooking time etc.

The article was transcluded into Cooking by the creator [1], and this should also be removed but I will wait for the outcome of this AfD first. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,and use ref in Cooking. This seems like an interesting article to have, but none of its contents seem supported by the one source that actually works. What's "typical"? At best, the table is WP:OR based on number-crunching the source. Since this article adds nothing of value to the source (which is valuable; it would be a shame to just make it disappear), let's simply replace the transclusion in Cooking by a ref to that source. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:08, 19 December 2016 (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.