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 redirect to Calorie restriction. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone. Because it's been merged to "calorie restriction" by the nom, it can't be deleted. I am redirecting to that article since that's where anyone searching this will find the information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NIA rhesus macaque calorie restriction study[edit]

NIA rhesus macaque calorie restriction study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A non-notable study that doesn't need its own page. I've merged the two paragraphs into calorie restriction already. Jack (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Jack (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to National Institute on Aging, otherwise delete. Mccapra (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously not a search term in need of a redirect, no indication this study needs an article but calorie restriction is a good place for some of its content. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is not enough to show this as a notable study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2021 (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.