Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food quality

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 keep. Proponents of deletion have argued that the topic fails DICDEF, but there was only one editor who argued this with certainty. Those wishing to keep the article have denied that the article fails DICDEF, and argued that the article passes at least general notability guideline.

There is a consensus that the article is in need of improvement. That may be fixed through normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Politrukki (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food quality

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) with rationale:

Food quality is a very vague topic that belongs more in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. There is no information here that couldn't be included in a different article.

Endorsed by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), but deprodded by StellarNerd (talk · contribs), who asserted importance without further improvement. I agree that this might fail WP:DICDEF, but I am not confident about my opinion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as prod-2-er. Total dicdef here, redundant to other articles, undersourced. If there is a valid topic, then WP:TNT needs to be applied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as food quality is a topic of paramount importance and the current article is not a dictionary definition, being much beyond. If the article should be improved, improve it, don't delete it. Most important food quality is handled by extensive sources. There are dedicated academic journals like Journal of Food Quality and Food Quality and Preference, both of which rate Wikipedia articles. The academic journal articles on the subject are beyond count, but a few examples are Peri, Claudio. "The universe of food quality." Food quality and preference 17.1-2 (2006): 3-8., Grunert, Klaus G. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand." European review of agricultural economics 32.3 (2005): 369-391., Cardello, Armand V. "Food quality: relativity, context and consumer expectations." Food quality and preference 6.3 (1995): 163-170.. There are handbooks on the subject, such as Food Quality and Shelf Life, Food Quality Assurance: Principles and Practices, and Food Quality And Standards - Volume I. There are, in fact, hundreds of books on the subject. As many would say You Are What You Eat, and food quality is all about that. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question (and I'm leaning delete) to those who think this should stay? Would you also advocate for an article on Drink quality, House quality, Table quality? What is special about Food quality? CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is rather vague, I'd expect a discussion of food standards, quality testing or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It needs to include government bodies (and their responsibilities) regulating it (in the US, the Food and Drug Administration, Food Safety and Inspection Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Environmental Protection Agency), and pertinent laws, e.g. the Food Quality Protection Act. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is covered by Food safety. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just look at Google Scholar. The topic has been discussed in academic journals. Even the EU has a whole page on it. Just because it is not sexy and Wikipedia no longer has editors who want to work on mundane articles does not mean it should be deleted. It should be improved (not by me, of course).Outdatedpizza (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Love your username, User:Outdatedpizza, it is so appropriate for this discussion! StellarNerd (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; @CT55555:, valid question. The answer is that there are plenty of written sources for food quality, but I don't expect to find a lot on table quality! There are whole journals dedicated to the subject, such as Food Quality and Preference published by Elsevier, I think, "Food Quality and Safety" by Oxford (yes, also covers safety), and Journal of Food Quality. I'm not sure this article is currently all that great, but the subject is definitely widely written-about. It's of interest to governments, and hence we have Food_Quality_Protection_Act, but that's not an appropriate redirect as the subjet of food quality in general is greater than the US legal framework to deal with it. Food quality is also fundamentally different to food safety, and yet of great interest to the public, who expect more of their food than merely that it won't actually make them ill. Elemimele (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. I was going to !vote delete. I'm now not sure, so I'll stay away from voting. CT55555 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, CT55555, I didn't mean to gang up on you, or bludgeon you into a different opinion! I thought your question deserved an answer, because it's a valid question to ask. It made me think, and go and look what sources exist, so it was worth you asking it. Elemimele (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have no need to apologise. You have done exactly what we all aim to do at AfD, help people reach conclusions and and persuade people to change their minds. This is an AfD success moment. CT55555 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG as the primary subject of many reliable sources including peer reviewed academic journals and books. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep. This subject meets any number of standards of notability. A google search, google news search, google scholar search, google books search each come up with more than enough evidence of sources on their own. The topic is broad, but not as the nomination suggests, vague. It’s concrete, people get degrees in food quality, have careers in food quality, there are publications dedicated to food quality, companies that specialize in food quality… Jacona (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources offered by StellarNerd are more than enough to establish notability under the WP:GNG. WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I have every reason to believe that ordinary editing is more than capable of improving the page. Given this, the deletion policy indicates that this article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.