Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juicearianism

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 redirect to Raw foodism. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juicearianism

The article has no reliable sources, and will probably never have any reliable sources.--Hq3473 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, maybe send to Wikitionary. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the Raw foodism article (and this doesn't appear to be a recent addition: Some raw vegans can be subdivided into fruitarians, juicearians, or sproutarians. Both Fruitarianism and Sproutarianism have articles here on Wikipedia, so it seems that this article should inherit notability in that way. I do agree that the article as it is is very short and lacks references, but that is handled with a {{stub}} and a {{unreferenced}} template, not the AfD procedure. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lilac Soul. Get more 3rd party refs though. Valley2city^‽ 20:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This seems like an obvious neologism with a lack of sources (nothing on google news, books or scholar). Please remember that just because something exists doesnt mean we need an article on it, it still needs to pass notability standards. --neon white talk 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raw foodism. I'm finding five gnews hits under Juicearian but they don't look substantial enough to justify an article. "Juicearianism" gets 75K google hits, so I'd call it a useful search term. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raw foodism, and I would say merge but there's nothing really to merge. As per above, it doesn't appear terribly notable, but there are 75k google hits, though mostly to blogs and small websites. Cool3 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (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.