Talk:Feeding Everyone No Matter What

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Stonejm9 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There are already 6 wikipedia pages that reference "Feeding Everyone No Matter What" including: •	Famine •	Food security •	Food systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_systems •	Natural Gas Processing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas_processing •	Survivalism •	Joshua Pearce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Pearce

I am a new editor and worked hard on this page. There is no promotional language that I can see, but please paste the sections that you believe are promotional on the talk page. I will fix it right now (I'm in the process of fixing the red links right now). Thanks, I'm excited to be part of the wikipedia community.
 * Speedy deletion tag removed. Please fix the reference needed tagged sentences with verifiable sources. --Sirsurvivealot (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Spamming
I have no opinion on existence of this article at present, but it appears you're working hard to WP:SPAM a plug for the book at multiple articles. A better approach is to find the articles where this matters most, and work in some text that really improves the existing text. What you've been doing looks more like finding a place (at no cost) to insert some text as a means of inserting a link to this page. That's backwards. Start with finding text that needs improving, and if a link here is the best way, then OK fine.... but you still need to cite it properly. See WP:Citing sources. The format used here is reasonably well done. Have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked through the global catastrophic risk pages and filled in the solutions that were not mentioned (many times creating a new section because no solutions were offered). Alternate foods (the subject of the book) was just one of the solutions I added (food storage was another common one). So I believe this does improve the content of the articles overall. Unfortunately, I see that these sections were removed. One of my criticisms of the global catastrophic risk field is there is too much emphasis on the risks and not enough emphasis on the solutions. I think anyone reading these articles is done a disservice by not being informed about what can actually be done to reduce these risks. Would you recommend that separate pages for the solutions for each of these global catastrophic risks be created? It seems like this would not be as efficient or effective. Stonejm9
 * You can identify the pages where it matters most here. Needing to add something of the solutions... well, that's fair enough.   Do you know any OTHER sources - ones that pass the wikipedia test for a "reliable source" - besides this one book, or from this outfit, or these authors?   I'm not going to watch this page, but will pay attention at Food security.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Linkrot
I could not find any bare links, but I tried to fill out the references more. Hopefully this is enough to remove the message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonejm9 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability Card
I made some edits to the initial section to address the notability card. What I did was make not of the media coverage of the book and also the organizations working in this space that endorse/reference the book. Could someone take down the card? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragedyofthecomments (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from Science, the sources still look pretty weak to me. If you've finished adding sources, we can take it to AfD, and if it survives AfD, we can remove the notability template. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)