Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional food definition by FFC


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Functional food definition by FFC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This apparently WP:COI article is basically presenting one organization's particular definition for "functional food" and its background. This is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the activities and motivations of the this one organization, the FFC. It's basically an advocacy essay, even after I deleted, just now, a section stressing the importance of all of this. It's essentially the organization using Wikipedia to publish its views. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I found zero RS on searching for the FFC itself, which I therefore assume is not a notable company. Consequently, it is highly dubious that its definition of whatever is notable, when no source to that effect is provided. And that is without even looking at potential OR issues. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to say that FFC's definition of functional foods is absolute or should they take any or all credit for defining the concept, however, much like all things in the field of science, everything is up for debate and discussion because things change. FFC is not trying to claim that everybody in the industry should understand functional foods by solely their definition. It is FFC's responsibility to let the functional food community know that this is a refined version of the many historical definitions. The fact remains, this is not a definition that was created out of thin air and had no scientific proof; more or less it was a definition that would better communicate the qualities and essence of functional foods. Since this is a scientific field of study, the current FFC definition of functional foods will not be a permanent one, as there will be more research to facilitate a new or updated definition. FFC is only advocating that functional foods be understood as something more than just orange juice fortified with vitamin D. Functional foods cannot be defined as a general term because there are so many properties that validly point out that there is more than what meets the eye. It is a much deeper concept than one would assume, there is no conflict of interest because FFC is only wanting the community to understand that functional foods are functional for a reason, they treat chronic diseases. That is all FFC wants to advocate, a major detail in the scope of functional foods. 19:48, 7 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8980:900B:D88C:B4FF:3C31:6BED (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine for FFC to advocate and convey an understanding, but not here. Wikipedia isn't an outreach vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is comprised of several references and citations to convey an understanding, how is that different from the FFC page? Does the page not provide reputable peer reviewed sources that contribute to the topic? Does the page only provide references that cite from its own substituents and entity? Is it only the name of the article that breaches the guidelines for conflict of interest? The way this is set up at the moment, if the wiki page were to be merged with the "functional food" page, then there would be a conflict of interest where FFC would be advocating that their definition is the absolute definition for functional foods. As you mentioned, Wikipedia is not an outreach vehicle; that is correct, it is an online encyclopedia. However, what if the entirety of the functional food community is at a consensus with this definition? Would there still be a conflict of interest? That would mean that there is objectivity on the matter. I could only assume given the direction of your response, there is no reasonable way for this wiki page to remain active under the sanctions of wikipedia. 18:39, 8 October 2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:17D0:1D24:CEA3:672A:7D13 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A generally accepted definition of a thing is already going to be the core of the article on that thing. We aren't going to have an article called "Definition of phobia" separate from the article "Phobia", an article called "Definition of climate" separate from the article "Climate", etc. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Hopefully, this detail will help with the merging clarification that took place earlier today. Largoplazo made a proposition on the functional food definition by FFC wiki page and told me to link it to them. 18:41, 11 March 2016 (diff | hist). . (+1,276)‎ . . User talk:Largoplazo ‎ (→‎Proposed merge with Functional food definition by FFC: new section) It is possible that Largoplazo did not receive the message of the necessary changes that were made in my talk page, which outlined all the editing that would have resolved any issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Functional_food_definition_by_FFC&oldid=713739982 On April 5th, I created the talk page that would list all changes or revisions to the functional food definition by FFC page, but there was no response by Largoplazo. So there may have been a miscommunication where Largoplazo was not notified, however it was proposed by Largoplazo to merge the two pages together. The activity from earlier today was not an agenda to put out my content to advocate for FFC's definition. I'm just trying to resolve this issue by following the guidelines of wikipedia and the enforced policies by wikipedia employees, but this is much more difficult than what your suggestions offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) Here are a few links to the conferences that took place around the world to show that FFC is an organization that represents the functional food community as a collection of scientists, professors, USDA, and FDA officials, working together to educate students, doctors, and everybody about functional foods. To clarify, these are individuals that do not exclusively work with FFC, but are collaborators. Here is a conference report for the Harvard Medical School Conference: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/dbfc12f0d4/ARCHIVE Conference Report for Kobe University: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d5db3f5096/ARCHIVE Conference Report for University of San Diego: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d4d2113e77/ARCHIVE These conference reports highlight notable speakers from government organizations such as the USDA and FDA, even researchers from the NHI. If you would please take a look at these conference reports, it would provide you with a bigger picture of what FFC does as a company. We are not trying to push an agenda that functional foods are as what we define it as, we are collaborating as a scientific community to reach a better understanding of functional foods and educate our audience with the current affairs. More importantly, if we could merge the two pages like what was initially proposed, then this issue would be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:FRINGE. Blythwood (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete "Functional food definition by FFC": whether academically accurate or not (FFC is related to a university). It should not be merged with the existing Functional Food article, an action which DanikMartirosyan attempted to do without WP:CON today. The edit contains information showing DanikMartirosyan is President of the FFC, so a probable WP:COI applies. I reverted it and will be placing a warning on this user's Talk page. --Zefr (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That the organization exists and that it engages in activities aren't in question here, and the organization's merits are beside the point. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for espousing its mission and notability of the organization are among the concerns under consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (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.