Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food insecurity


 * 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 merge and redirect per Uncle Ed's kind offer. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Food insecurity
soapbox article, little or no relevant content --172.147.119.245 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many articles begin as stubs like this. Not sure what it is "not relevant" to. Should it be merged into one of the poverty articles, as a section? Let's try Poverty threshold. --Uncle Ed 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. I'm not sure if this topic is significant enough to have its own article. However, the article is so new, it makes little sense to throw it away immediately. A merge with a bigger article might make sense--with a possible redirect on this term. Also, why exactly is this a case of soapboxing?  Dall  ben  22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The 10th result on a Google Web search for the phrase "food insecurity" comes up with the article that Wikipedia has already had on this subject for 3 years and 6 months, now. It covers the same ground and has the additional benefit over this article of not being entirely U.S.-centric in its content. Redirect to food security. Uncle G 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect, like Uncle G says. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the new official term used by the U.S. government for what used to be called "hunger." No kidding. Edison 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the very title of the USDA article that this article links to uses the phrase that we've had an article entitled with since 2003: food security. Uncle G 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sometime this Thanksgiving Weekend I'll merge Food insecurity into Food security as a section; and I'll leave behind a REDIRECT. I don't think it will ever get long enough to be "spun-out" to a separate article. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:44, 23 November 2006 (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.