Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair in 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 merge and redirect to Food contaminants. Probably doesn't deserve its own article, but at least deserves a mention. Sr13 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hair in food

Hair in food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I created this article and don't think it should be deleted as it documents a real and widespread phenomenon. It is referenced as well. Despite this it was tagged as patent nonsense. I say keep. Onthaveanaccountcreateone 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• CommentTthe article was replaced by User:Woggy with a redirect to another article. Those considering the AFD can view the original article at [1]. I have asked Woggy to undo the preemptory redirect for the duration of the AFD. Edison 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect was undone by User:Tvoz. Thanks. Edison 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Although the subject may sound silly, It is capable of been expanded. A suggestion to you is to expand the article or try and improve it. But i think it should be kept (for now) or merged into an article similiar to this one. (Woggy 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Are there grass-roots campaigns demanding food be inspected for hair? Do newspapers publish editorials about this phenomenon? What's next? Dirt in food? Overcooked meals? Those are "real and widespread" too. Clarityfiend 08:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Look at these google results - lots of sources for hair in food.--Onthaveanaccountcreateone 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A string of google results for a phrase does not (necessarily) confer notability. Following on from Clarityfiend's comment above, Google also produces pages of results for the equally non-noteworthy Overcooked meals • nancy • 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• There are 11 references. This is surely noteable.--Onthaveanaccountcreateone 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an important public concern, particularly about restaurants, and although not perfect this is a fairly good and reasonably well-sourced article about it. I mean, Food Quality magazine, folks. If they think it's a notable aspect of food quality, I'd hope they'd know. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. So you're advocating articles about cleaning chemicals in food, medications in food, personal items in food (pens, jewelry, combs, etc.), tools, nuts, bolts and other equipment-repair items in food, sneezing into food, and coughing into food - all of which are listed along with hair in the Food Quality article? Clarityfiend 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:WAX. I don't think that my not understanding the hate for this article is deserving of sarcasm. It simply seems like a legitimate topic. There's food contamination but a) that's focused mainly on packaged food and b) the topic before us is covered in health terms, in mitigation, and in legislation terms. Sue me, I found it interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Are you saying that I'm not making a valid point? Each of the potential articles I listed is, if anything, more important and encyclopedic than this one. My response may have been adulterated by a small pinch of sarcasm, but it has still been certified 100% safe for Wikipedia consumption. I can see it being briefly mentioned in food contamination, along with a 1001 other things, but it doesn't merit a whole article by itself IMO. Clarityfiend 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article could be merged into another article about health. (172.200.22.239 10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete - patent nonsense. I can search any term in google, so can I write article based on that facts? Nope, it fails WP:NOTE. — Indon (reply) — 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• It's not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is things like "aeiaey9w-9t" and "I watched a rabbit have fun playing with red socks from the top of the hill while I was stoned today, it is good, no?".-Onthaveanaccountcreateone 11:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I don't think this article should be deleted, But by the looks of it, It probably will be deleted. Like i said before, This article could be merged into another article about health. (Woggy 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• It's not about a term, it's about a subject. For example the term "several layers" is not subject but would return google results, this is a subject on the other hand. People saying delete should take note, I thought Wikipedia welcomed new encyclopedia articles on proper subjects that are widely known and have sources.-Onthaveanaccountcreateone 11:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Man, people worry about the wrong things. Have you seen all the other crap that goes into food? ~ Infrangible 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seriously... is this a joke? I mean just read it... any article that starts with " Many people consider..." should never haver made it past NP patrol. Build a bonfire and burn this crap. MartinDK 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This Article is not crap. You shouldn't call a users article crap. If you think its crap, Then keep that to yourself Martin DK. You have probably created a crap article sometime in wikipedia. (Woggy 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
    • Comment This from someone who made this edit? Aaaaaand let's not forget this fantastic edit by the creator of the article. I'm calling WP:DUCK here. MartinDK 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment That was just silly and i regret doing that. By the way Martin DK you shouldn't stick your nose into other peoples buisiness. (Woggy 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete Could this be CSD-ed per db-nonsense? Corpx 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• I guess not - in that case delete per only trivial mentions in those articles Corpx 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Patent nonsense? Are you serious? It's an article about a legitimate, established issue in food safety. If it happens often enough that the commies have been able to get laws passed for it, then it's certainly deserving of an article here. Kurt Weber 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is not patent nonsense at all. It should not be deleted. (Woggy 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, did you even notice that the nominator wanted to keep this article? WP:PERNOM indeed. Oh, sweet irony... DHowell 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why do you think this article should be deleted? (Woggy 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete I wouldn't go so far as to call it patent nonsense, but it's definitely unencyclopedic. Maybe reasonable as a section of a larger article on food contamination, not an article all its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why do you think its not enclyclopedic? I think its an ok article, But it should be expanded and improved. (Woggy 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete or merge with Food contaminants - doesn't deserve its own article. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It would be much better if it was merged with Food contaminants (Woggy 17:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete This is trivia.--Yannick 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think this should be kept or merged but not deleted. I disagree with it been deleted. (Woggy 17:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

I have made it a redirect to Food contaminants. The user could include some of this information there. (Woggy 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

• Merge to Food contaminants. The references about hair in food can add to that article. Food service workers have long worn hair nets because hair is easily detectable and objectionable in food. But it is better to have one article than separate articles for "Hair in food" (30,000 Google hits), "Shit in food" (10700 Ghits), "Urine in food" (6940 Ghits), "Semen in food" (960 Ghits), "Insect parts in food" (886 Ghits), "Insects in food" (636 Ghits), "condoms in food" (7 Ghits), "Snot in food" (3 Ghits), and "severed finger in food" (3 Ghits). There should not have been a redirect in the midst of an AFD. Edison 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: Article was prematurely redirected elsewhere; I removed the redirect so that editors can evaluate the article for the purposes of this AfD. Tvoz |talk 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Food contaminants and redirect. That would be a more suitable location. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - do we need an article for candle on computer? Eyeglasses on bookshelf? Is this the start point for List of substances that are (within Western Culture) not supposed to be in food, in food? Does that mean we'll have articles for dirt in food? glass in food? Dirty glass in food? Or is "hair" the key point of this article? Should there be hair on floor, hair in shower drain, hair on back-order? This whole "debate" reeks of WP:POINT, and I imagine it's a call for sensible action. Leaving this article in will lead us down a slippery slope, and at the bottom of that slippery slope is hair in food in popular culture (I'll leave it to another editor to work on a popular culture-focused pun ;)) --Action Jackson IV 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Food contaminants and redirect. There's no end to the possibilities for crap, critters, objects and foreign substances if they all have their own articles. Acroterion _(talk) 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge for the same reasons as above GWatson • ^TALK 04:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is not article material and it is not notable. There is nothing more to say than just that, hair in food; of course, if we are talking blond hair in food we might have need of the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just because the subject is silly, It doesn't mean it should be deleted. (Woggy 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
• Merge per above. Reinis^talk 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kurt Weber. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, now 16 references, folks! And there aren't even 16 sentences in this article! If it is badly written, then improve it! "Many people consider..." seems to me to be a valid paraphrase of "most consumers find the presence of 'any' visible filth contaminant such as hair in a food product objectionable," a quote from the first reference listed. If you don't think "hair in food" is a notable topic, then at least merge this into Food contaminants, Food safety, or Food and cooking hygiene. DHowell 00:01, 27 July 2007 (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.