Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of food


 * 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. After discounting the opinion by blocked sock Genome$100.  Sandstein  15:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Future of food

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Several issues: a) contents already well covered in Food security and associated articles; b) essay-style under unsuitable title and with too-broad focus; c) reads as personal synthesis, although it actually may consist completely of material paraphrased from a single source that pops up a dozen times in the references - without making this POV clear; c) would in any case have to be rewritten completely to achieve an encyclopedic and NPOV tone (and intelligible grammar), although that's the least problem. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 12:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- This article is a POV issue. Also I don't understand why all of the sources are in Chinese.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are all in Korean, not Japanese. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the article quality is WP:TNT worthy in parts, but this seems to be a plausible topic and I don't see any existing articles on the subject. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that isn't covered by Food security or one of the articles prominently section-linked from there (with the exception of the insect protein thing, possibly). Which bits did you have in mind? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "how are we going to feed so many people" content is all covered there. The part on "what new foods may be invented in the future" isn't covered anywhere.  Insects as food (as Entomophagy) is a separate stand-alone article, and I'm not sure why it's relevant.  I'd be interested in more Cultured meat-type content in an article on the "future of food".  As a practical matter, my vote is Redirect to Food security, which is a fairly high-level/overview article and a plausible redirect target; expanding the "Use of genetically modified (GM) crops" section to be more widely about "research" would allow everything to be covered there.  I see no reason to merge any content as part of the AfD process; any requests can be discussed on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the topic is worthwhile having. Some of the content is also discussed in English language shources, for example eating insects. Probably nearly everything needs rewriting though.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete article. Keep content, but move it. The content belongs to the article Food shortage. I could see the content improving the current skeletal article of "Food shortage". But I would expand the content with the pros and cons of the controversy of future food shortages/surpluses, etc. Knox490 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, what is in that article that is not in Food security and connected articles? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep per Graeme Bartlett. The article is properly written and well sourced. In future more English sources will be added by fellow Wikipedians. This type of knowledge article are very much essential for wiki readers. Genome$100 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bartlett; this is fundamentally a question of whether the sourcing verifies its claim to notability, and, whilst it leans perhaps rather too heavily towards one particular source, per WP:NOENG, the fact that they are Korean (and German?) does not stand against them. The arguments favouring deletion rather tend themselves towards WP:AADD: reading as an essay, being poorly written, and that it should be TNT'd, and much of the nomination itself could fall under WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm talking against a wall here. For the third unanswered time, what in this article is not already comprehensively covered in Food security and connected articles? Does anyone voting Keep here even bother to check if this is a content duplication? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge This is the same topic as Food security and as such they should be one article. EvilxFish (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article seems like someone tried to start the Food security article over again, with English as a second language using mainly Chinese sources. Everything in this article is covered much better in Food security. Angryapathy (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Other articles explain the problems mentioned much better at the moment. Also IMO I feel calling it Future of Food will leave it open to partisan editing in the future, particularly if left in this half empty book state. The future of food is maybe a topic we are missing, we have a Future of Earth for instance but there is nothing here salvageable or coherent enough to keep. Delete and start again. Mattg82 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Elmidae's repeated and unanswered question above.
 * Keep it's amazing that we feed over 6 billion people on a regular basis, and the prospect of feeding 9-10 billion is daunting and one of the world's most pressing issues besides war and climate and technology. Speaking of technology it is playing an increasing role in innovating how food is produced, and a true revolution is underway on how we produce and transport food and what we eat.  This isn't a "Food Security" topic -this is far beyond it.  While we can all quibble about the near singularity of country of origin of sources, we should applaud the creation of this page with the full understanding that it will evolve to include rich and constantly evolving content. And I look forward to working on this page to improve it. Rsarlls (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer "Elmidae the word "technology" is used 16 times in the Food Security article, almost all relating to GMOs. The global consumer shifts away from animal protein (esp. in developed world - Millennials and Gen Z are increasingly vegans), the use of robotics and technology in growing and harvest crops, Impossible meat, driverless trucks, fully automated restaurants, urban and vertical farming, the role of app driven delivery services, etc. are NOT covered in the Food Security article. They SHOULD be covered in this article and I will work to include going forward.
 * Delete promptly. This is an embarrassing, severely English-challenged essay, not an encyclopedia article. Eric talk 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete an unneeded WP:FORK of Food security. Also, per WP:TNT; even if there were a topic here somewhere, this article's ain't it. Does not belong and not an asset to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The research cited might well be of interest but the presentation looks to have wandered into territory which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Dolescum (talk) 04:24, 4 January 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.