Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food product drug

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Food product drug

[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)

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Subsections like Cinnamon, peppermint, turmeric, custard apple, basically expand upon what's already covered in their respective main articles, with some added WP:OR. The lead is unsourced and OR. - Harsh (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it makes sense to have one article/list that readers can go to. We are serving our readers with easier navigation. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP so if portions of the article are WP:OR, they can be eliminated. We follow the RS - and there is abundance of it here. Lightburst (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you bother to research the topic? What is a "food product drug"? Are we allowing invention of medical and pharmaceutical terms that don't exist? Just because there are RS in the subsections, that doesn't justify existence of such an illogical list/article. - Harsh (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first sentence, it's "a term used to describe..." I think you'd be hard pressed to find terms not used to describe things. Seriously, though, I fully agree, Harsh 2580. This term appears to have been fabricated for this article and doesn't appear to exist even within pseudoscientific circles of the web: [1]. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 04:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A list of foods with proven medical benefits might be a good article, there ample coverage on them. Might make a rather long article though. Dream Focus 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term "food product drug" does not exist in the literature and appears to be WP:OR. Not a single cited source uses this term; this article is arranged as a list of foods that might have medically useful drugs in them, and any content supposedly tying them together into a standalone topic is unsourced. Content on specific foods is generally covered already in their respective articles. Furthermore, the subject is already within the scope of Medicinal plants. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 04:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lead paragraphs explaining the concept are unsourced. The focus & title of the article are not sourced, and are not objectively explained (what is the actual technical difference between a food and a drug?). The phrase "food product drug" is not verifiable. Add those three features up, you get the answer Original Research and Synthesis. This is not a thing. --Lockley (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be kept, renamed and expanded as Natural products in drug discovery, which would be an important an interesting subject [2], [3], etc. Surprisingly, we do not have such page, only Natural product with subsection Natural_product#Medical_uses, and also Drug_discovery#Nature_as_source. Perhaps we should, and it would be a very large page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this article is currently about drug discovery or natural products. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of a natural product; that term has a specific biochemical meaning. This AfD is about whether this article, with its present content, should be kept. As of right now, it is entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should therefore be deleted. This is not the place to suggest the creation of a new, unrelated article. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it possibly should be renamed to something different like Medicinal properties of food. That would be an appropriate subject described in books like The_Encyclopedia_of_Healing_Foods. I agree that "Food product drug" is WP:OR. However, the creators of this page probably wanted to create a page Medicinal properties of food. That is not WP:OR. This is just a matter of making a correct title of the page subject I think. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point about it being OR is that the content supposedly establishing this as a separate topic, rather than just a list, is completely unsourced, which makes it OR, like Lockley stated above. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the entire lead of the page is WP:OR and must be completely rewritten, along with renaming the page. But I do not think that WP:TNT is the best solution here. The reason: this whole page is relatively well sourced, contrary to what you say, and the content is actually on a legitimate topic. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at, but doesn't the article Medicinal plants already fully cover this topic, and in even greater depth? This article is all about plants, herbs and fungi. Medicinal plants is a detailed, well-written article on the medicinal properties of plants, herbs, and fungi. Also, content about individual plants being well-sourced is not enough to turn a list of plants with purported medical benefits into a standalone topic. I said that the content supposedly establishing this as a standalone topic is unverifiable, which it is. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we also have Functional food to enforce your argument... I am not sure all medicinal plants like tobacco, etc. are food. Also food can be fish, meat, salt, etc. This is not the same. But I should run, sorry. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Tartan357: renaming and keeping this article in any form will just lead to WP:CFORK with existing well-written and more in-depth articles. - hako9 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this page is poorly written and organized. Perhaps userfy. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the proposed articles could be notable, but they would share nothing in common with this one. It should just be WP:TNT deleted and a new article created if that is desired. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2020 (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.