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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEWFood[edit]

This article describes a proposed product that is both controversial and unverifiable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While controversial now, the proposed product could be the only food alternative in the oncoming food shortage. Spirulina products based on fecal matter are already a reality. Reuse of food fibre from fecal waste is not impossible as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.7.43 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 May 2009

I cannot find any news or scholarly coverage on fecal spirulina food, nor does the article cite any references. As a proposed name for a product that doesn't yet exist, notability seems doubtful. Hairhorn (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the second link, under 'External Links' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.7.43 (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't scroll down quite far enough... and your first link is broken. I can accept that the technology exists, but your link says nothing about Singapore, NEWFood or the WHO, other than the fact that the WHO likes Spirulina. Hairhorn (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wronkiew's reasons. Get rid of it. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article so, pardon if i'm not very good at it, you mentioned "but your link says nothing about Singapore, NEWFood or the WHO" What should I add about these 3 subjects? Or gaive me an idea of what I should add? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.99.252 (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, try Category:Waste management or Soylent Green but hoaxes aren't appreciated. Drawn Some (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable original research, as is the claim of a food shortage so severe that people will be reduced to eating processed sewage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is verifiable, note the decline in food stocks and increases in prices as well as dropping food production due to climate change. Increasing carbon footprint and expectations for living standards are raising this faster than ever. Also try these links :

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:NnkK65ZT6MMJ:mmcconeghy.com/students/supcarryingcapacity.html+capacity+of+earth&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my&client=firefox-a http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:W71Ed4qsEeYJ:dieoff.org/page28.htm+populations+capacity+of+earth+%2B+UN+statement&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.249 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more links that about food, but not NEWFood. Nothing in here verifies the main claims of the article. Further, total worldwide food supply has never been the issue in famines, there has always been more than enough, it is just not distributed evenly, although that doesn't mean that that will always be the case. Your article would have better footing if you could provide at least one news report backing up any of the claims at the top of the article, although you'd still be stuck with an article based around a proposed name for a non-existent product. Perhaps we could wipe the unverifiable content and merge with Spirulina (dietary supplement). Hairhorn (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tightly controlled Singaporean media are not permitted to cover items that could affect 'civil order'. Updates will be made if project proposals for the NEWFood Sewage Recycling Factory progress any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.96.121 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 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.