Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn 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 keep. Consensus that this material should be somewhere. If a merge is desired still, please open a discussion on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn food

Unicorn food (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)

Fad. Hardly a new thing to colour food, is it? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most definitely a fad, but it remains to be seen if a passing one. The article cites both the NYT and BBC describing this particular style of food preparation. The success of the recent Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino goes a long way to show that this fad may not be fleeting. I doubt this article will ever become extensive, but as Unicorn food definitively exists, I believe the Wikipedia article should not be deleted. SamHolt6 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep While this article is incomplete, the trend existed long before the starbucks drink and is widespread enough for WP:Notability. --ZarosFlok (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to either Food coloring or Food presentation. I find it relevant that all three of the article's sources were published within a day of each other earlier this month. This makes WP:NOTNEO a valid reason for deletion. But, the existence of the trend might be a useful addition to the article on Food Coloring. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC) amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Equine nutrition :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - we don't have articles on "galaxy food" or any other "whoohoo, look at this fun colouring!" fads that have happened in the last few years. This popped up due to a particular drink, and will die again once the next foodie "trend" comes along. As for my !vote - I'm leaning towards delete on this one because I can't see it being merged easily into food coloring. However, it could be placed as a section in Food presentation. NewYorkActuary, thoughts on this? Primefac (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Thanks for asking. There's so little material here that it might usefully be merged into either article, and I'm indifferent as to which one is used (or whether the material ends up in both articles). I'll amend my recommendation to reflect this. As for the two comments immediately below, the New York Times source does indeed mention earlier coverage -- by pointing us to an article in Vogue that was published two days earlier. And the author of the ManRepeller piece notes that they first heard the term from the Instagram postings of a person who is writing a cookbook of that title -- a book not slated to be published until 2018. I think we are very much in WP:NEOLOGISM territory. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and I can't quite believe I'm saying that). The links in the article do provide evidence that this is a trend that has existed prior to Starbucks' (in)famous drink. The article could do with expansion to incorporate more of this history, but that's never a reason to delete it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although most of the coverage it has is because of the Starbucks drink, Unicorn food existed before then and did have coverage before then, thus this is not a one time thing. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Food presentation this title actually reminded me of "reindeer food" we would make as kids with glitter and oatmeal for Rudolph, then I realized it was about the Starbucks thing (and related fads). Just because it has happened more than once doesn't mean it is notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Things like this come up and go, but it doesn't mean it has lasting significance like we want for notability. A redirect will keep the page history and allow us to merge what is appropriate. If this becomes more notable over time, we can then restore it with no fuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Food presentation. Not every fad needs an article if it fits perfectly well into an existing one.  Sandstein  17:23, 9 May 2017 (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.