Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodology


 * 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. There is no evidence that this is beyond a neologism. An assortment of unrelated items like this would be a disambiguation if there was non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Foodology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A trademarked neologism is still a neologism. There's nothing unique about the "method" - indeed, there are "different approaches" to the method. This is an advert for a specific company who trademarked the otherwise in-use, through and through the panda ₯’  10:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that this article seems to be designed as a tool to promote the use of a neologism and a not-so veiled attempt at corporate promotion. All sources list one specific organization as the source of "Foodology." As such, deletion would be proper under WP:NEO and WP:PROMO. Aytea (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again Ayeta, I appreciate the time and effort that you've put into reviewing and critiquing this article. I do have to admit though that I am somewhat confused by another message that you left on my talk page. It reads as follows:


 * Hi, I'm Aytea. Bfpage, thanks for creating Foodology!


 * I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It seems as though this could be a page of value. Good work with the citations. Needs more expansion of all sections.


 * The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
 * Aytea (talk)8:55 pm, 20 October 2014, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)


 * So at this point, I am somewhat surprised that you went from giving me compliments about the article to nominating it for deletion. I certainly assume good faith on your part, but I was hoping after reading this message that you might be able to explain how your support for this article went to its nomination for deletion. I believe that all the issues that you had with this article have been resolved. Thank you again for your constructive comments related to this article and I hope we can all come to consensus on its being retained as part of the encyclopedia. If not, I would like to submit it for Afc.


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - :I am the creator of this article. I explained my connection with the the article on its talk page.  I contend that the word 'foodology' is not a neologism since is is not an invented word, expression, usage, or the creation or use of new words or senses.


 * Here are reliable sources, per WP:NEO, which I am willing to insert into the article to expand its scope:


 * A scientific theoryA Scientific medical journal article that uses the term foodologyA book in which the term is used another journal article Another journal article that uses the term Another book in which the term appears


 * Less reliable sources per WP:NEO, but still illustrating the world-wide use of the term foodology:
 * the name of a blog, the author has used the term since 2009, in a different senseused to describe a community festivalA US based company who has a product line called Foodologya food blog with content from 2010 A food blog called Foodology A food blog based in Canada with content from 2010]A food blogA Singapore food brandAnother blog called FoodologyA TV show blog with information from 2004Another blogA New Zealand blogAn Indonesian catering companyAnother blogwith posts from 2010android appA manufacturer who uses fresh food similar to the company mentioned in the article


 * This article is not designed as a tool to promote the use of a neologism and a it is not a veiled attempt at corporate promotion. I am not affiliated with the company in any way.  I am not interested in its promotion.  I am vain, but not vain enough to try to create a neologsim.


 * I am willing to insert these references under external links.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added the above references and more. In addition, I have linked this article to other relevant articles and now it is not an orphan. I have not inserted any wiki links into this article yet. I trust you will reconsider nominating this article for deletion. Best regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article describes a random assortment of unrelated things that have been called foodology. This does not add up to an article because there is no coherent topic to write about.  Sandstein   05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Pulling together the 'random', unrelated things that have been called 'Foodology' is exactly the point of the article. Someone needing to find out information on the term will be helped in seeing that the term is in wide use and applicable in many fields.  This article is probably one step above a dictionary entry since explains the wide scope of the subject.  This article seems like a disambiguation page (which does pull together all the different subjects that refer to the title of an article) but there is not enough content to create the other articles related to the topic. I consider your input interesting and will keep your comments in mind as I continue to edit the article. If Wikipedia is to be a repository of information for the present and future, the article is justified because people need to see exactly how the term is used and in what context. Perhaps a little more editing is needed to better tie the content together. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hopefully my recent reorganization of the topics covered in the article has decreased the perception of randomness and instead helped to clarify the different uses of the term.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: To the administrator closing this discussion:

If, after administrative review that determines that this article should be deleted, I would instead, like to submit it to Afc so that it can be brought up to the standards required to be included in Wikipedia.


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

06:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk )
 * Delete useless neologism for corporate food service. No sign of general use outside the circles of those advertising such services.


 * I still maintain that the topic of the article is not WP:NEO and WP:PROMO WP:NEO and WP:PROMO. It is not possible to provide information on all of the applications of the term without listing the businesses that use the term. I neither favor or oppose or recommend any of these businesses. The topic refers to over 21 usages of the term. This information is too long for dictionary entry. There is not enough content for an article on each of these usages of the term. The article is suitable for use in an encyclopedia. There is not an existing article which covers the same topic. If this article is deleted, Wikipedia will lose information that at some future time someone may want to expand upon. This article was patrolled, encouraged and approved.  One goal of Wikipedia is to create an up-to-the-moment encyclopedia on every notable subject imaginable. This particular article can serve as launching pad from which others can take off.  Admittedly, this article is a stub. But stubs can be relatively short, a few sentences, and can provide some useful information. I have maintained a neutral, objective tone in all the content I have added or edited.  I have cited secondary sources (e.g., a major media article, journal article or book) for statements I written and have only restated information already existing in a secondary source. The article contains categories and links. I may learn more about it in the future, and accordingly will have more to add. You can see from the editing history that I am actively improving and expanding this article. I am just like any other editor and I have  something to add to Wikipedia. Others just don't know it yet.


 * I have maintained a tone that is formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. I have edited for brevity. I have kept in mind WP:AUDIENCE by including information about the topic from all over the world. I have avoided the use of peacock terms in weasel words.


 * Concerning consensus in a discussion at an AfD


 * I do not think it is the main role of the administrator closing the discussion to decide between two conflicting policies or opinions. Their job is to discard arguments not based on any policy and they should at least read the article. In some cases editors participating in the discussion simply do not like the topic. In some instances COI is assumed and the good faith statements of the article creator are ignored. The only people here competent to judge conflicting content policies or how to interpret them are the interested members of the community as a whole, acting in good faith.


 * The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them, but close according to what most people in the discussion say. So let's take a vote. The closer has a strong view on the matter and he/she has joined the argument instead of closing. The closer has tried to affect consensus. If I wanted a place where my view of proper content would prevail, I'd start a blog or become an editor of some conventional publication.


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NEO. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sandstein puts it best: this article is essentially a list of unrelated things that are called "Foodology", not an encyclopedic article about the term that is supported by non-trivial discussion in reliable sources. Ultimately, this is a term that appears to have no coherent or well-sourced definition, and ultimately is a neologism. -- Kinu  t/c 18:30, 31 October 2014 (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.