Deletion of Food Justice

Comment: I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better  than the  that was there previously.  With  like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow.  There is other good  in the article that can be found from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=food+justice&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36 Google Scholar search of food justice and possibly some references listed in the journal article of the new lede sentence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: 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. '''''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: or '''userfy'''-. The subject may command an article, but this is not it.Apply 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: or '''userfy''' per JamesBWatson. Although the subject may be deserving of an article, this is not the article it deserves. I think  applies here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: or '''Userfy''' -- the article, as is, has significant problems, as noted above (|POV; too many inadequate |sources; and, ).  However, as the authors correctly point out, significant improvement from when I first suggested to Userfy  (revised ).  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.  {{pb}} 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 , not delete the students' hard work. That outreach has occurred. added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:OR)