Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodflation

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. No prejudice against redirection should anyone feel so compelled. czar 14:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foodflation[edit]

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

From the talk page: I can't find the previous discussion for its nomination. Seems like a clearly silly, biased article... 47.139.8.118 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC) . Note that I have no opinion on the merits of the nomination, but it seems valid, therefore I create this page. Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator tells us plainly that he has "no opinion". Per WP:BEFORE, they should not then be starting an AFD because of some half-baked, anonymous opinion found on a talk page. The topic is notable and there are clearly alternatives to deletion such as merger with food prices. Andrew D. (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid nomination, and I would object speedy keeping it on procedural grounds, if this is what you mean.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this has to be the most ridiculous AFD comment I've seen you make so far; Ymblanter clearly stated they were completing the nomination for an anonymous editor. You should withdraw the above comment, as it will probably be ignored by the closer anyway. If you don't, then I really think you will be TBANned from AFDs within the next month. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, as I said, I object to speedy keeping the article, I also think that Andrew is in his right to !vote keep on the basis that the article can be merged into another article. Let us have the AfD run its course and see what the opinions are.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Why I didn't !vote, I don't have an opinion either way. I'm not saying Andrew is wrong that the page could be merged (although AFD has always recognized that as a possible outcome, and Andrew didn't !vote that way), but if you look at his !voting record he throws buzzwords like BEFORE, BROADCONCEPT and so on around without much care for how they apply or even if his comments look completely ridiculous, and sometimes it looks like he has not read either the article or the AFD nomination before !voting. (Also, my reference to a TBAN is not based solely on this: he also has a tendency to show up on AFDs of articles in highly specialized topic areas he knows nothing about, pretending to be familiar with the literature, and then when challenged either not replying or continuing to double down in order to confuse the closer by making them think that topic-familiar editors are in disagreement.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in this case as a receiving side I do not have any serious problems with his comment as soon as the closer takes the arguments properly into account. (No opinion on the topic ban etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really want to go into whether or not quoting some random IP for an AFD nomination is a good idea or not, but YMblanter knows the way and the page was pretty bad beofre I gutted it. I look it up in GNews and found 2 major sources mentioning it, so it is real and has existed since at least 2011, not just Made Up One Day. However, only its only 2, not enough to pass the GNG, but I do think a redirect might be suitable; Food politics, working poor, famine, Global hunger index, and or famine scales may be valid targets. Personally I am for Famine Scales or Famine. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism with an entry that doesn't make sense. FloridaArmy (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 23 May 2018 (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.