Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food issue


 * 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 delete. While the article links to clearly notable topics, consensus is that there is no specific concept being described by the title. Michig (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Food issue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I PROD'd this article a couple days ago. Today, turned it into a redirect to eating disorder. I considered that option when I PROD'd it but ultimately I think the term "food issue" is way too broad to be an appropriate redirect to any one thing, and too nebulous to serve as an appropriate disambiguation page. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "The food issue" is a common term in discussion of food supply. "A food issue" is a common term in discussion of eating disorders. Just because you haven't come across a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think a lot of things, but I try to make assertions when I want things to happen or not happen. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a search and found it essentially in use as a descriptor, not a technical term - in the same way you might refer to a "heart issue" or a "gasoline issue". It just means there's a problem with something. We don't make disambiguation pages for every possible combination of two words that might refer to something we do have an article about. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this a keep !vote, or are you just trying to make snide comments about the nominator? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No dictionaries that I've checked have listings for "food issue" (can't access the OED at the moment, which would be worthwhile to check).  The phrase isn't even used at Eating disorder which is where it was trying to dab or redirect to.  A quick google search for "food issue" is mostly returning magazines that have special food issues, and not any sort of technical term.  As a dab page, it's not structured correctly (lots of (vague) links per entry, listed as a stub, etc).  Barring any evidence that this is indeed a technical term that's in use (and not just a fairly generic use of English), this shouldn't even be a redirect, due to the vagueness and the other possibilities, as mentioned above.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep A quick google shows that the term 'food issue' appears in many books and articles from reputable publishers, over at least 30 years, including in 1988 World Food Conference Proceedings: Issue papers (Iowa State University Press), Trade, Food Security, and Human Rights: The Rules for International Trade in Agricultural Products and the Evolving World Food Crisis (Routledge), Localizing Global Food: Short Food Supply Chains as Responses to Agri-Food System Challenges (Routledge), Agriculture, Food Security, Nutrition and Health in North-East India (Mittal Publications), 'The global food issue' in The Guardian, 'The Food Issue: The Science of Feast, Fuel and Farm', Scientific American. It certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As it stands, though, the page does not give enough information to be an article, and does not work well as a disambiguation page, because it does not link to any clear articles about either usage (why is Famine not included?). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But there's nothing to meet any guidelines because this isn't a term that's in use in any but the most generic form. You could probably find more results if you looked for "food problem" or "horse issue", but those aren't going to be valid articles, or even valid disambiguation pages.  Not only that, but your #6 is exactly what I mentioned above – it's an issue of a magazine about food.  That doesn't count.  And why would famine be included?  We could just as well include E. coli, or Food presentation, or Food safety, or Food allergy, or ...  Those are all food issues. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly it. There is no evidence that "food issue" is a concrete concept with any particular definition. The phrase is simply a noun plus another noun that indicates there's a problem that has to do, in this case, with food (or that a magazine is spending the month talking about food). You could tack "issue" onto any given word and wind up with a similar descriptive phrase; that doesn't mean we need a disambig page for every possible one. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, number 6 of my links is not an issue of a magazine about food. It's a one page article in the Guardian newspaper. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Er, the Guardian is your fifth link. Your sixth link is to Scientific American's food issue. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - From the titles RebeccaGreen presented, I assume that all of these publications are using the phrase to refer to issues with global availability of food and/or the sustainability of food production. Those are two quite different meanings to the one assumed above (issues an individual has with food, redirected to eating disorder). That suggests to me that, as a phrase, it doesn't have a clear an unambiguous meaning; rather, it's a couple of words that could be used together in different contexts to mean different things. On that basis, I don't see why we need it as a page; if we are going to keep it, a disambiguation page would seem necessary to direct people towards the relevant context. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Girth Summit, I was thinking that the second point on the Food Issue page relates to issues with global availability of food and/or the sustainability of food production, largely because it mentions sustainable agriculture, but I have to say that I find that point rather confusing, as it puts together five types of disputes (between whom?) over about a dozen topics, which all have to do with food production or consumption, but in different ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. As others have said, there is no evidence the combination of the words is a concrete topic. You can put "issues" behind almost any word and get google results, but that far from means anything towards GNG. There's nothing to merge, and any issues or controversies related to food would just get handled at food or more concrete topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (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.