Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental causes of obesity

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as merge and redirect.

Having looked at both articles, I didn't find anything in this article which I thought really added to the existing article on obesity. Given the timing of some of the edits, I suspect that someone else has already implemented the merge. I am going to turn this into a redirect. If someone else sees something worth merging, please feel free to recover it from the article's page history. Rossami (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental causes of obesity

Dupicate of material in obesity, no individual merits, quotes Wikipedia (suggesting this was originally an essay). Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any verifiable, properly sourced material into obesity, and then delete. Nandesuka 01:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is rambling and unreferenced, but it's a topic worth having. Obesity is already fairly long and its treatment of the environmental causes of obesity is very light. Keep it, but excise unreferenced/unencyclopedic information and throw a cleanup tag on it. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I am swayed by the impeccable logic of Geogre, et al. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Fernando Rizo. --Apyule 09:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merges should be finished with a redirect to retain the edit history per GFDL requirements. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge per Fernando Rizo again. --Apyule 02:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Fernando Rizo is right that it would be good to have a discussion, but we can't have original research. Cleanup definitely can't or won't handle a job this detailed, where the duplicate material from obesity is stripped and unsourced claimed are cut. We don't have a template for "cut out the stuff that came from X." I have to say that, unless the original author can do it (which would be a case for RfC on the article), I don't think the things that need to be done can be done, so I have to vote merge with obesity, even though I agree that an individual article is possible. Geogre 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If anything needs splitting off from obesity it is not a section on environmental causes. I'd much prefer the "policy responses" section to become its own article, as this is a very hot potato (e.g. fat tax). JFW | T@lk 20:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. As per Geogre. Just don't clutter obesity with a bunch of speculation. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per all. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. There is not too much sourced non-OR stuff here that will survive a merge, IMO. Sdedeo 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Optichan 20:01, September 12, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.