Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Grains


 * 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 keep.  MBisanz  talk 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Grains

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article (or list) has no defined scope. Noone knows what does "ancient grain" means. As the lead section says, the list is based on the description given in Wikipedia articles, which is contrary to WP:CIRCULAR.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thing called "ancient grains" do exists., . Only thing is that article is not well written. This can become a list class article. Any interested person can look at these kind of lists to get list of "ancient grains". There is lots of coverage regarding these grains. -- Human 3015   TALK   11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. The nominator hasn't explained why these issues are unfixable. Siuenti (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: As per my previous comment. I will try to improve article. I'm in favour of making it proper article and not "list class" article. If somehow I succeed to add 1500 characters then I will nominate it for DYK, it is very interesting topic. -- Human 3015   TALK   12:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The question before us is whether "ancient grains" is a topic that is encyclopedia, verifiable from reliable sources, and notable. It appears to fit all of those criteria, with all of the search links coming up with extensive results. Even leaving aside incidental mentions, much has been written on the topic -- more than enough. The article (or list) needs work, but that's not relevant to an AfD discussion. Clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't fully pursued here. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - if kept, this article needs to be moved to Ancient grains per WP:TITLEFORMAT (use sentence case for article titles). shoy (reactions) 20:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Grain Delete? Scope is a nightmare. As with superfood, this a marketing term for almost anything exotic to American palates. I'm not advocating deleting superfood, so I appended my delete here with a "?", but be aware of what "ancient grains" are and are not. Also note, the term "super grain" exists and conceivably could be alternative title for this topic. While there are heirloom grain varieties that have changed little over time, supplies of these are low. Anything that is being intensively marketed and put into products (e.g Cheerios) manufactured by multi-billion dollar corporations is being produced with the aid of modern plant breeding techniques. The quinoa boom was not fueled by increasing production of heirloom quinoa varieties; as quinoa entered the global market it became subject to major breeding efforts. There's nothing necessarily ancient about the grains being marketed as "ancient grains". Heck, even triticale, which was first bred less than 150 years ago is listed as an "ancient grain" on websites such as this one. Another site lists bulgur as an "ancient grain"; bulgur is essentially cracked wheat and is made from the same intensively bred wheat varieties used in other wheat products. As far as I can tell, "ancient grains" is potentially anything in Category:Grains and its subcategories except for wheat, rice, rye, oats, maize and barley. If this article is going to be kept as an article on the marketing term, look into adding fonio (it's getting trendy, some sources refer to it as an ancient grain, breeding still pretty minimal). If the article is going to be about grains with minimal modern breeding (that haven't necessarily been heavily marketed) look into adding Job's tears, Hyptis suaveolens, and Echinochloa frumentacea. I feel sorry for the people who developed Montina; a few years too early for the "ancient grain" hype, they missed the opportunity to highlight the ancient Native American use of Achnatherum hymenoides (and downplay their own breeding efforts). Plantdrew (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every grain is called as "ancient grain". Only 9-10 grains are recognised as "ancient grains" by US Whole Grain Society, and article only talk about them. I think you should read the article and sources. You can search it on internet. This is very different topic and covered by independent sources. It passes WP:GNG and deserves article. Nominator nominated this article for AfD when it was having this version created by new user, but now article is improved to optimum level.-- Human 3015   TALK   23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the article and sources. Who is the US Whole Grain Society? The article cites the Oldways Whole Grain Council (note that Whole Grain Council redirects to Whole Grain Stamp, which is about a labelling initiative by this organization). If you look at the members of the WGC, it's pretty clear that it is a marketing association including the major players in the "ancient grain" industry. The WGC definition of "ancient grain" is decent, in that it's vague and quite inclusive, but "ancient grain" is fundamentally a marketing term. Ancient grains aren't necessarily "unchanged since thousands of years" as the article claims (and common wheat which is clearly the one grain that definitely isn't an "ancient grain" has been cultivated longer than many of the so-called ancient grains). If you want to write on an article on a marketing term, go for it, I guess. But there really isn't any unifying characteristic of "ancient grains" besides them being marketed under that term. They may be gluten free (or not). They may have higher levels of some nutrients then common wheat (while common wheat may have higher levels of other nutrients). They may have undergone modern breeding efforts (or not). They may be heirloom varieties (or not). Some of them (e.g. farro, freekah) represent preparation methods rather than plant varieties and could be prepared from "modern" grains. They are all exotic, which is a hook begging for a fancy term for marketing pruposes, but there are plenty of lesser-known (and arguably more "ancient" by whatever measure) grains that haven't received any marketing effort. Plantdrew (talk)
 * Changing my opinion. Preserve as a redirect to grain. Exotic grains are an interesting topic, but the main grain article already covers exotic grains more comprehensively and with fewer dubious claims (though it does need a lot of work). Plantdrew (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whole Grain Council's reference is given by BBC to discuss "ancient grains". It is notable. Moreover, whatever grains are mentioned in article are surely "ancient grains" and more than one source given for them. I can give more sources but don't want to overcite it. Anyway, if any content dispute we can discuss it at talk page of article. As far as notability of the subject is concerned it clearly passes WP:GNG. And there is difference between "whole grains" and "ancient grains". What you are talking about is regarding "whole grains". All "ancient grains" are "whole grains" but not all "whole grains" are "ancient grains". All sources stating that there are only 9-10 "ancient grains". Anyway, thanks for your vote and time. -- Human 3015   TALK   04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the list is potentially almost unlimited. There are 12 things with Wikipedia articles on the WGC list (plus 4 heirloom varieties of "modern" grains that lack article). The BBC list has 8 ancient grains, 6 shared with WGC plus bulgur and barley. Barley? Another source cited in the article now lists barley as something that implicitly is not' an ancient grain. Are you going with the BBC list, the WGC list, or some arbitrary mix of sources that potentially ends up including  everything that's a grain that isn't common wheat? And at that point, why not just redirect to grain? Plantdrew (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can read "further reading" section, whole lot of books written on "ancient grains", it deserves article. I already said that very detailed article can be made on this. I have created just start class article, one can't expect from me that within one day I will take this article to "good article" status or "featured article". But it serves DYK purpose and world should know about this interesting thing. Originally this article is not my project, I came here just by accident while deletion sorting, but as Im interested in food related topics I decided to improve it. I can keep on giving many sources but I think these are enough to establish notability as separate article on this subject. You seems to be active member of Plant project as your name suggests, but try to contribute to project in positive way, not negative. You should support to increase coverage of various plants, do not decrease it. -- Human 3015   TALK   04:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I want to thank you. Because of your intervention article is improved further. Now we have reliable source published by Penguin Canada that each grain is at least 5,000-10,000 years old which makes them "ancient". And with free mind one should accept that this topic is important and deserves separate article. There are so many sources for this topic that we can keep on writing many things. But I restricted myself to few very important things and article should give quick overview of the subject and should not look like lengthy thesis. If you want you can do relevant improvements in article, you have vast experience of plant related topics. I just want to thank you again. I hope you will help me next time whenever I will edit any plant related topic. Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK   08:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to request you that you withdraw this nomination. At the time of AfD nomination it was very stub and bad written so you were right at that time, but now we have realised that subject does passes WP:GNG and actually very detailed article can be written on it. I have just improved article to optimum level and also nominated it for DYK. Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK   01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to the recent development.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have nominated category:Ancient grains for deletion, if anyone's interested．Siuenti (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - and I note that this nomination clearly qualifies for a WP:SNOW closure. I also note that I've listed, on the article talk page, a number of additional, excellent sources, that justify a "Keep" closure, as well commenting on several cited sources in the article that I feel do not meet WP:RS criteria. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 21 October 2015 (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.