Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Justice

--Aaron Whyte (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)--Aaron Whyte (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)===Food Justice===

Food Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

POV fork of Food security and Food security in the United States. A large number of social justice-related articles articles similar to this were created as a school project. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to food security as valid term [1] and merge references and appropriate content to Hunger in the United States. All-out deletion should not be necessary. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking to those pages mentioned (Hunger in US & Food Security) is a valid point and will be considered, however, food justice movement is significant and merits its own page. Tamsberk (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only should this article obviously be deleted, but it is close to being suitable for speedy deletion, as the whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote a point of view. Such use of Wikipedia is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect (with a lowercase "j") Valid search term, article is entirely POV pushing as JamesBWatson states. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

What specific sections are pushing a POV? The creators of the page are EXTREMELY open to feedback and making necessary changes; we are new users and act/write in good faith. This topic is extremely valuable especially as a resource for those affected by food injustices to be informed. We welcome edits to the page and look forward to collaborating to improve this article, rather than rushing to deletion. Tamsberk (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"What specific sections are pushing a POV?" How does one even begin to answer a question such as that? The whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote an opinion. To quote just a few of the most glaring examples, "Food justice is the right of all people", "Food assistance programs are important for food justice", and "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities". None of those can conceivably be viewed as neutral and dispassionate reporting. However, it would be a serious misunderstanding to imagine that all that needs to be done is to remove a few blatantly promotional sentences such as those, because the whole concept of the article is that a particular view of issues relating to food is the "just" one; even the title of the article indicates that. Furthermore, your message here indicates clearly that your purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotion. Consider the phrase "for those affected by food injustices to be informed": you are both asserting the view that the issues in question are "food injustices" and indicating that your aim is to use the article to "inform" people of the views expressed in the article, i.e. to publicise or promote those views. No matter what the merits or demerits of an opinion, Wikipedia's policy is that articles must not express or advocate that opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

-Hello, thanks for the feedback. The article is still in progress and we will edit to reflect more POVs and not use biased phrases. Food justice is an important, well-established concept in environmental justice discourse and merits its own page. It is a bit more difficult to write neutrally about social justice related topics; see also the pages food sovereignty and via campesina have some similar points. Feel free to read through our references. They are all reliable and the majority are peer-reviewed. As for the phrase "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities", I can see how the words "structurally faulty" may be perceived as bias, but there are statistics and peer-reviewed studies that prove environmental and food access issues disproportionately affect minorities. We do not seek to promote a certain viewpoint, but rather to post information on food justice issues publicly in a manner that is easily accessible for those affected. Thanks. Laejstudent2 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The concept of food justice is undeniably intertwined with food injustices, and to ignore that would be a waste of knowledge and only deflate the value and quality of the article. One of the phrases you quoted was pulled out of context; earlier in that sentence it was clearly stated that "one PROPOSED cause of food deserts is structurally faulty legislation...". Some legislation, particularly FDR's New Deal as we noted in this example, has direct and explicit implications that we touch on in the article as possible contributors to food deserts. The team behind this page does find value in your critique and we intend to include more theories on the causes of food justice - related issues. No views are being pushed, much of our data comes from the US government -- we do recognize that this article is mostly focused on the US and encourage others to contribute to the article to help make it more worldly. Tamsberk (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Food Justice is a world renowned term, and there is a lot of peer-reviewed literature regarding Food Justice. Here is one example from a major academic press. EJAlly (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a POV piece, that relies mainly on unreliable sources. http://justfood.org/advocacy/what-is-food-justice & http://www.wellhousegr.org/food-justice-grows-at-well-house/ are not suitable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. As the above commented or noted food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement it also refers to much more. It is deeply tied to racial justice and economic justice. It is understood as one way that we can challenge racism and classism in the public sphere. It is not homogenous movement. It refers to many different movements and smaller perspectives. Food justice does not simply refer to a POV; it is a movement and an object of scholarly analysis. Anthropologist, sociologist, scientists, feminist and queer studies scholars have all analysed food justice in their work. HmEdit (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (EST) — HmEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep or Userfy -- the article, as is, has significant problems, as noted above (POV; too many inadequate sources; and, WP:OR). However, as the authors correctly point out, the subject is notable because of coverage in secondary sources. Although we do have just a tiny little section Food_security#Food_Justice_Movement that the best material could be merged to, ultimately this subject is significant enough that it will need its own article. So it seems a wasted effort to merge and then have to separate again later.
  Instead, it would be better to get the students to fix the article to comply with our standards. If this was indeed part of a school assignment, we should do outreach to the instructor to explain our sourcing standards and the problem with WP:OR, not delete the students' hard work. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better WP:RS than the WP:OR that was there previously. With WP:RS like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy per JamesBWatson. Although the subject may be deserving of an article, this is not the article it deserves. I think WP:TNT applies here. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better WP:RS than the WP:OR that was there previously. With WP:RS like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow. There is other good WP:RS in the article that can be found from Google Scholar search of food justice and possibly some references listed in the journal article of the new lede sentence. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The sources look good, I see Routledge, JSTOR, journals, government sources and the topic is notable. I made some changes also and agree with User:David Tornheim, it has potential to grow. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy-. The subject may command an article, but this is not it.Apply WP:TNT.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - The perceived and actual discriminatory policies that it describes and seeks to counter is matched in this article by equal and opposite bias. This is neither balanced nor encyclopaedic and the content should have been incorporated elsewhere. I would rate this as an essay at best with very strong whiffs of marshalling arguments to fit a preconceived outcome.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Food justice and associated movements are political, so descriptions of such a movement may contain discussion of political opinion. This page is worthwhile and growing. It could use editing, but by no means should not be deleted. Aaron Whyte Talk   17:00, 14 April 2017 (EST)