Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eating Approach

:{{la|Eating Approach}} ([{{fullurl:Eating Approach|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eating Approach}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Prod declined by author. Article is redundant to Vegetarianism Lacto vegetarianism and Lacto-ovo vegetarianism. Adds no new content, and it's hard to imagine what new content there might be. This is essentially either a unnecessary list page or an unnecessary disambiguation page. There's no real need to keep this around all week if someone can come up with a speedy delete category for it. Hairhorn (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Diet (nutrition). I was in the process of converting it to a redirect when the AfD nom was made. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:*This is an unlikely search term, so I would argue against a redirect (even though a redirect would get rid of it faster). Hairhorn (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::*"Eating approach" gets a few thousand Google hits, all of them using the term more or less euphemistically for "diet"; a redirect wouldn't cost us much, so I think it could be justified. But I'm not going to lose sleep either way :) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::*yeah, me neither... Hairhorn (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - While a redirect would have been fine to avoid the hassle of an AfD, now that we're here, there's no point in a redirect. That is not a search term, and looks as though maybe it's a trade name. Those factors both recommend against redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2009 (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.