Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of superfoods


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

List of superfoods

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

topic is subject to commercial spam and low or absent WP:RS; topic is a past fad with content lacking WP:V Zefr (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given that "superfoods" is just a marketing term that's pretty well meaningless, I'm not sure how it could ever be encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - marketing term with no real definition; this is destined to be an indiscriminate list. Neutralitytalk 22:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have an article at superfood that covers the topic well.  A list of "super foods" encompassing just about anything that someone has called a superfood, as noted above, will indeed be indiscriminate.  Deli nk (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We should not have lists of products which have been marketed at one time or another using meaningless hype mumbo-jumbo language. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no 'superfoods'. The topic is not merely non-notable, it describes something that doesn't exist. And a 'List of products that have been described as superfoods' is about as encyclopaedic as a 'list of people that have been described as ugly'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and cant be written to meet them because per User:AndyTheGrump wrote above. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (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.