Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair in food

Hair in food

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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)[reply]

Keep 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) (Woggy 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
Look at these google results - lots of sources for hair in food.--Onthaveanaccountcreateone 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are 11 references. This is surely noteable.--Onthaveanaccountcreateone 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

- Comment. This article could be merged into another article about health. (172.200.22.239 10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

- 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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

- - 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))[reply]
Delete Could this be CSD-ed per db-nonsense? Corpx 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Comment This is not patent nonsense at all. It should not be deleted. (Woggy 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you think this article should be deleted? (Woggy 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment Why do you think its not unenclyclopedic? I think its an ok article, But it should be expanded and improved. (Woggy 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]