Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy


 * 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 no consensus. The vote count is pretty even here, and both sides have advanced reasonable arguments for their positions. The main thrust of the delete !voters was that this is an example of WP:RECENTISM, although several editors also cited concerns about a WP:POVFORK violation. These are fairly strong arguments for deletion. On the other hand, a number of keep !voters cited the degree of coverage that this received as evidence of permanent notability. Other keep !voters expressed confidence that POV issues had been/are being remedied. So, the keep arguments seem pretty strong to me, as well. Since there are roughly even amounts of fairly strong arguments, I'm confident in saying that the community has failed to reach a consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy
Note: The page has been renamed to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK spun off with zero discussion from Chick-fil-A, which is currently seeing heavy POV editing and conflict among editors. Topic is notable but smacks of WP:RECENTISM (note RECENTISM and NPOV tags currently placed on parent article). Most events are scarcely 30 days old and establishing lasting notability necessarily requires use of WP:CRYSTAL. Absent additional developments, the section in the parent article needs to be pared down to avoid WP:UNDUE, not spun-off into a new article.  Belch fire - TALK 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a fork, but a "Controversy_regarding_LGBT_issues" fork instead.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion for a biased article title is informative. As much as I disagree with forking to avoid the inevitable slimming down of the parent article, I will at least give the creator credit for choosing a mostly accurate title.   Belch fire - TALK  04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is already a section in the current article, and current consensus is it is not biased there, so how could it be biased here? And for the record I'm in favor of any fork that is neutrally worded.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus ≠ neutrality. Just sayin'.   Belch fire - TALK  04:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since all articles are supposed to be neutral, and we edit by consensus, then yes -- the section title is neutral. That of course can change. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Circular reasoning doesn't actually lead anywhere, just so you know.  Belch fire - TALK  05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Belch... there's a very reasonable argument here for a rename, but not based on political orientation. You're not winning any arguments given your approach in the above thread. Focus on the RS, and what the media calls it, or maybe what the media doesn't call it. As I say below, I am undecided on whether or not this is notable. But focus on the relevant issues please. We try to keep political considerations out as much as is possible [with the obvious understanding that we're all human]. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not arrive at the issue of renaming until we first conclude that a fork is called for. I note again that this was done unilaterally, with zero discussion.  But a content fork is not allowable if done for POV purposes.  If this is not a POVFORK, then please explain why the title of the new article obviously adopts a POV diametrically opposed to the title of the article section it is spun from.  A review of the original Talk page and article history will show that I am on record agreeing with the POV of the fork creator!  I am actually of the opinion that the original article section should be entitled along the lines of the new article.  My argument is therefore 100% grounded in policy, not POV.  I am actually making a policy argument here that cuts against my own personal POV bias.   Belch fire - TALK  16:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy (or something similar that uses the preferred term "same-sex marriage" and removes "freedom of speech," which is not the source of the controversy) or to Chick-fil-A and LGBT rights (to encompass earlier issues). This is a content fork due to size that would facilitate the maintenance of due weight in the main article, since these details are relevant, well sourced, and persistent but do not make up the majority of encyclopedic content on Chick-fil-A. Article also needs editing (eg. Equality Matters's publishing details of Chick-fil-A's donation of profits to anti-gay groups is actually significant here, but it's given a single sentence, while the article incorrectly frames the entire public response as solely to Cathy's comments) but that isn't a reason for deletion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Roscelese. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: subsidiary article written from a certain POV without discussion on the main article. Fails POVFORK. How about that ? Pretty impressive first time at bat. Only here 6 days and already can write a wikified, sourced article with proper layout even to the point of adding cite templates. This is a C class article for gosh sakes. I didn't realize our tutorials were that good. It took me months to get to that level. You go, tiger. – Lionel (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lionel.... Plaayaaa  :) Builtiger (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:COATRACK. There is no impingement of freedom of speech, since that could only be done by the government. Speciate (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really not the question. Renaming is certainly fine (probably called for), but that's hardly a reason for delete. Not to mention, a few major cities mayors were talking about not permitting new permits for the restaurant in their city, which certainly does involve government action. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the Rename is fine. Speciate (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:POVFORK. This can be adequately covered in Chick-fil-A. Ryan Vesey 05:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ryan Vesey makes a good point.  He says that this should be covered in the main article however what's interesting is that the creator of this article actually started this page by taking material from the main article to create this page.  Put it back and delete this article since it fails plenty of Wikipedia policies.  ViriiK (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Literal duplicate of this article exists in the Chick-fil-a wiki entry.  This article is 1) Redundant  2) potential for criticism of wikipedia as a source of bias / support for issue one way or the other.  While I do have my own beliefs on the issue -as I'm sure ALL of us do- I am positive we can all agree that wikipedia is not a platform for expressing our beliefs, one way or the other.  Kyanwan (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment For both Vesey, ViriiK, and Kyanwan. Those are all essentially POV fork issues, but that material was copied/moved is hardly relevant. The question is if it's a valid fork, or if it's a POV fork against policy. But the method to do that... like copying content, is pretty standard with most forks. See any recent major news event and you'll see exactly the same thing. The question here is how notable is the incident. That depends on reliable coverage, and it being notnews. Those are the policies you should be citing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This issue is not significant enough for it's own article in this enclyopedia (an article in a newspaper sure but last time I checked this is not a newspaper) it's is a footnote in the companies public relations history which seems important now due to all the news but in perspective it is very insignificant. When One Million Moms protested and called for a boycott for J.C. Penny for having Ellen Degeneras as a spokesman (since Ellen is openly gay) did we spin that off into an article included Bill O'Reilly's opinions and every else's no we included it as only a minor footnote in the companies history about it's public relations See the article here this controversy is practically the same and should be handled as such.   Algonquin7 (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I really do see both sides of this debate, and while I don't want to argue in principle against this separate article it does seem far too early to know whether this should be justifiably separated from the main Chick-fil-A narrative. Also I'm concerned about the removal of material from the main Chick-fil-A article, such as the Jim Henson withdrawal: given the high profile of the Jim Henson company, it is far too soon to decide this is just a "news blip" and readers will expect *some* mention of this in the article, otherwise it looks suspiciously like selective POV. Alfietucker (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly this sort of thing is surprisingly common on wikipedia. Event happens that makes big newspaper splash, so has tons of reliable sources, but most of them repeat the same thing. In the end we keep many of these, unless they're local in nature. I don't have an opinion about it yet because I think many of these events are very hard to determine if they're notable at the time. This is where policy comes in. So I would just say that everyone commenting here should steer clear of the typical stuff and focus on the policy for this reason. And while I fully expected this AfD (I patrolled the article within the first 10 minutes of its creation... this afd was started within a few hours after... not sure the exact time) perhaps some patience is helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete - WP:TOOSOON it is far too soon to determine if this is an actual "controversy" which time and perspective will show had some type of effect and notability outside of the corporate entity or if it is just a storm in the media and blogosphere teacup. -- The Red Pen of Doom  10:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Echoing what The Red Pen said, it is too early to know if this issue will end up being notable enough to justify a separate article. At the moment, it's a media firestorm, the long-term impact of which is very uncertain. We had a fairly extensive discussion on this last week on the CfA talk page, and consensus there reflected keeping the content where it was. For someone to say today that a new article is justified requires the use of a crystal ball. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not a freedom of speech issue, therefore article should be renamed at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.42.216 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obvious WP:POVFORK with a nonsensical title. It's already covered in the Chick-fil-A article from which much of the content was copy and pasted. The new article conflates two different issues: gay marriage and freedom of speech, and borders on WP:SYN. MrX 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - The article in question has morphed significantly since this Afd was started. As such, my commitment to deleting the article has waned. I would still prefer that the information somehow be summarized, condensed and included in the Chick-fil-A article. On the other hand, if these events have sufficient momentum and end up rising to historical importance, then I would support having a separate article. MrX 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "if these events have sufficient momentum and end up rising to historical importance, " - keyword is if so far the only evidence is that it is the typical slow late summer news period, and the news got tired of foolish "zombies on designer drugs" non-events where the designer drugs were not actually present -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:TOOSOON really is just says "wait for WP:GNG to be met." I don't think it's too credible to suggest that the topic doesn't have sufficient number of sources already to stand alone as an article. Renaming is an issue that can be considered separately. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It seems to me that many of the editors voting to delete this article are attempting to take part in some kind of political activism. Saying stuff like "There is no impingement of freedom of speech" or "written without discussion". None of those are wikiepdia policy. Either you guys really don't have a single clue about wikipedia policy, or you're desperately looking for a reason to delete this article. This can be only merged to the main article if much of the important information is deleted and/or oversimplified. --BoguSlav 13:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting POV, considering that Page Size reports the fork article (Prose size (text only): 5936 B (946 words) "readable prose size") is actually a little smaller than the section it is spun-out from (Prose size (text only): 5969 B (955 words) "readable prose size"). I invite you to go to work reducing the size of the main article section forthwith, since it clearly needs to be done.   Belch fire - TALK  18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The whole page smacks recentism. If it doesn't get deleted now, in a month or two when cooler heads prevail it will. But please, let's just delete it now and get it over with. I'm not sure who decided it'd be a good idea but it's clearly not. -- HappyHippo69(talk))
 * Delete as POV fork, and as possibly excessively small POV fork. As Ryan Vesey has already said, the Chick-fil-A article as it stands is sufficiently short that all the necessary content can be included there. Also, honestly, if there were to be a spinout article, Corporate culture of Chick-fil-A would probably be a better one, given that it would be able to spin out more material. So, in effect, this article seems to fail both as a spinout to limit the length of the main article, because the main article isn't too long as it is, and it very definitely seems to be basically existing for the purpose of giving the subtopic more weight than it apparently merits. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think John hit the nail on the head here. An article on Chick-fil-A's corporate culture would be perfectly appropriate and it would allow for summary style to be used on Chick-fil-A.  That article would contain this information, but also information regarding being closed on Sundays etc. Ryan Vesey 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chick-fil-A – It's a flash-in-the-pan news story, not a separate Wikipedia topic, and a POV fork to boot. There is no reason the information currently in the article can't be properly summarized and included in the main article and not follow our undue weight guideline. --MuZemike 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per Roscelese. As idiotic as I find this controversy, it's clearly gotten enough attention to merit an independent article. Keeping this lunacy at a minimum in the main article is preferable and keeping this article, under a more suitable name, should make it easier.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with the nominator's concerns about WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT. I also agree with Ryan Vesey's and John Carter's rationales; I think this could be covered adequately in the parent article and would prefer to avoid forking controversial content when it doesn't seem necessary. Alternately, per MuZemike, we could redirect the article back to Chick-fil-A and merge the relevant content. MastCell Talk 17:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rename, Protect/Improve I'd argue that this news story has received significant enough attention to merit its own article, regardless of my or any other editors political leanings. The recent statements by several city mayors (Boston, Chicago, etc.) alone makes the article notable and worthy of inclusion, in my opinion, as it has opened up a discussion on belief and business that is surprisingly rare in American political discourse. However, the current name is very POV (on both ends of the spectrum!) and needs to be changed. For those concerned that the article is a POV fork, I'd argue in favor of Protect and Improve to avoid non-registered POV editing, rather than delete. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:MOUNTAINOUTOFAMOLEHILL. This is yet another transient bit of political haymaking that will shortly blow over; it can be (and in fact already is) included in the main Chik-fil-A page. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Perfect example of content fork and recentism. Issue can be easily dealt with within space of parent article.Marauder40 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, I'm always against deleting things too quickly. There are some informative stuff in here that should be merged into the Chick-fil-a article. But most of it is basically news that is not necessarily historically relevant...so I don't see a reason for a separate article on the subject. --haha169 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/rename. I am not against having this page kept because of the notable coverage that this controversy has received, as well as how parties other than Chck-fil-A have continued to preseve public reception and interest into this aspect of the restaurant. If all this were to be put on the Chick-fil-A page, then it would distract from the other aspects of Chick-fil-A that the page details. If this page about the controversy is to be kept, then I believe that the "freedom of speech" portion needs to be removed from the name because this isn't so much a freedom of speech controversy as much as it is a controversy concerning a social stance that Chick-fil-A upholds. I would want the page to be moved to something along the lines of what user Roscelese recommends. As much partiality as I have to keeping this page, I acknowledge that it does have some recentism. For instance, as of this post, sources 37-43 are all bare URLs; while this sources content from reputable sources, it hastily does so and only three websites and four URLs are used as the seven sources. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as POVFORK. -- The Anome (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chick-fil-A - This is big news now, but it is very POV and a compressed version already exists in the linked section. Unnecessary. ~  Pony  Toast ... §  22:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps I'm missing something, but why bother have a redirect if we decide to remove this article? It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone is going to search for an article called "2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy". Better to just delete it and be done with it, surely? Alfietucker (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is currently a link to it very prominently in the U.S. section from Google News, and I think there might be other links as well. At the very least, it seems like it would be convenient to have this as a redirect for the sake of external links from other sites.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - being based in the UK with the UK version of Google News, I wouldn't see that. Fair enough. Alfietucker (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - Due to discussion here, and on the talk page, I renamed the article to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, removing the "free speech" reference. If there are better names it can be renamed again. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/rename There has been substantial press coverage and political activism on both sides, with national figures drawn in. This article should be kept, but renamed. 'Freedom of speech' is only one dimension to a multifaceted issue, which may develop over time. Van Gulik (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/rename This topic has received enough coverage from multiple sources in the past few days to warrant keeping it. Name could be better though.XantheTerra (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long-running notable controversy with lots of analysis and international coverage. Way too much detail for the Chick-fil-A article, which is suffering from recentism and undue issues right now. Jokestress (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. POV is subjective and after reading the article it does not appears to have a POV one way or the other. Others feel it belongs in the Chick-fil-A page but it is important enough to deserve it's own page.  I agree the original name was an issue.  --Tfschueller (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:POVFORK. A distracting bit of nonsense that could easily be covered within the Chick-Fil-A article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  02:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * DeleteThe fact of the existence of this "protest" is significant to Chick-fil-A, and should be mentioned in the C-f-A article. What the "protest" is about, though is not as clear. People have focused on the same-sex marriage comments of Cathy, and make these the topic; if you are just talking about Cathy's giving his personal views of gay marriage, and that THAT is the controversy, not worth an article. The original Equality Matters press bomb mentioned some organizations that call themselves "pro-family" that filed amicus briefs aginst gay marriage legislation or lawsuits, but that amounts to a few thousand dollars of donations, also not worth an article. Now, it also mentioned other organizations that did NOT lobby or support legislative efforts that they called anti-gay for other reasons, but that is not a same-sex marriage controversy. Certainly there may be free speech issues if city officials use their office to censor or ban businesses due to political views, but that has not yet happened; it is just threatened. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge The controversy although newsworthy should just be part of the Chick-fil-A article instead of a stand alone article. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 04:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If you merge the page, then more than half the page of the Chick-fil-A article will be about the same-sex marriage controversy, which distracts it from being a page about a "restaurant franchise specializing in chicken entrées". At the rate we are going, we'll end up screaming for WP:NPOV ont the Chick-fil-A article instead. As much as you disagree with its COO, the entire history of Chick-fil-A is not solely defined by his opinion and the controversy. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 08:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to a non date based title. // Liftarn (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're hardly the first, but the article's been renamed for a while now... this just highlights how nobody bothers to actually look at the article at AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently (as I type this), the article still has "2012" in the title, so I think Liftarn's suggestion is still relevant (note - I don't mean to suggest that I agree or disagree with his suggestion). Calathan (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, the current article title begins with 2012. If you're going to berate someone for not reading, it might be good to do so yourself. Lady  of  Shalott  17:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So if a trivial rename is enacted, you keep? or delete? Shadowjams (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hasdi. There has been more written on this controversy than about the restaurant. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The restaurant chain is 66 years old. I think you meant to say "I've read more on this controversy than about the restaurant."  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  15:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP. What moron suggested this should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 August 2012‎
 * That is a personal attack and is unacceptable.– Lionel (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP: This has grown large enough to keep as its own page. That way the Chick-Fil-A page is not over run by this but keeps all the information and timelines open so not to keep it so limited to not understand the issue. 90moredays (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * COMMENT/SUGGESTION In regard to the keep-delete issue:   Can anyone find a single instance where any other company has been singled out like this (social/political views on a single topic)?   I've searched, and 500 results into my search ... found none.  This article is wholly political, highly biased - and has no true place on wikipedia.  Having more eyes trying to verify this would be helpful.  I feel using Wikipedia to report news is a VERY bad trend, and should be strongly restricted as a practice.  Issues should be given time to pan out, to become history - so they can be documented clearly, accurately, and completely.   Kyanwan (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Its not a company per se, but as an institution, it is close enough. Personally, I think this controversy is blowing things out of proportion. However, too many high-profile players like Huckabee and Bloomberg are involved, and too many news articles written. We shouldn't advocate any point of view, but need to keep score who said and did what. My 2 cents. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 20:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're comparing the systematic abuse of dozens of children over the course of a decade to this? Hippo nation will happily pay the bills for your needed therapy sessions. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hasdi is making that comparison at all. However it does answer the question that was asked: "Can anyone find a single instance where any other company has been singled out like this." The answer is yes. Also see Criticism of Walmart, Burger King legal issues, Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy, Corrib gas controversy, AFL siren controversy, Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy, Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2... there are more. Shadowjams (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume once this gets deleted... Reality, as well as most editors, will disagree with you on that point. HappyHippo69 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are indeed many. The Nestlé boycott leaps to mind, also Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, UC Davis pepper-spray incident, McLibel Case, Enron scandal... This case is unusual because most C-suite execs do not make public statements of these sorts. Jokestress (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Boys Scouts controversy makes an apt comparison - a private organization fully within its rights that has won in court repeatedly, despite persistent efforts by outsiders to force their point of view using pressure tactics. Yep, that's a ringer.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire, glad you agree that article is comparable in notability to this one. I do, too. That's why both should be kept. Jokestress (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man, and not even an especially artful one. I made no comment about any article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If your comment isn't about the merits of keeping or deleting the article, I'll remind you this is not a forum for your irrelevant opinions on other issues. We have precedent, as you note, for articles on comparable controversies. Thanks again for agreeing with my comparison. Jokestress (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * P & G -- MrX 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The overall article does not contribute any additional value as a stand alone article. Though it cites many sources, the organization of content highly suggests an under lying theme with an alterior agenda.   Therein lays the conflict one encounters when in reading the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXPamIAm (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework. This has rapidly become one of the biggest stories of the year, and the Chick-fil-A article is too narrow of a topic to contain it. The marriage donations, Jim Henson Company's protest, the mayoral blockings, the freedom-of-speech battles, the Huckabee protest, the kiss-ins, etc. Wikipedia isn't news, but this story is immensely influential and will be remembered by history - even if people forget Henson, Huckabee and Chick-fil-A.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:N no question. Casprings (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Casprings nailed it. The policy: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It's undeniable that we have such coverage. The story is big enough to justify its own article, and the old POV name for the article is now gone. The massive coverage and widespread and intense public reaction to the events shows this to be a significant event in the US "culture wars" over gay rights, family values, free enterprise, free speech, and religion. Sure, it'll be a magnet for some POV edits, but that's no reason to delete an article. I don't know what the "Keep/Delete" ratio is here, but I think the right application of policy is pretty clear in this case, regardless. Nick Graves (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Widely documented and encyclopedic. But let's aim as much as we can for neutrality. ComputerJA (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK, I'm now convinced. This issue, if you look at the world outside Wikipedia, is simply not going away and clearly is bigger than merely an episode in the history of a restaurant chain. And, as Casprings has pointed out, this has received wide and significant coverage in the media. Alfietucker (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oh, so now you need to have consensus to create an article? This nomination is baseless. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a pointless article about a pointless subject, the topic shouldn't even be discussed on here, the entire article is based upon personal beliefs and opinions, from unreliable non-neutral heavily biased sources such as this one. People from both sides tend to hijack articles like this one to force there points of view into the conscious of the reader, articles such as this will only lead to edit warring, since both sides have strong opinions and neither side wants to give things could turn ugly really quickly. And wikipedia was founded upon truth and facts not opinions and exaggerations. Wikipedia should be opinion-less not for nor against gay marriage or Chick-fil-A. Pluto and Beyond (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your comment is a valid deletion rationale. Deletion policy is not about whether the subject is "pointless or not," but rather whether it is notable or not.--108.20.144.127 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think many eyebrows, and this hippo-brow, are raised at the assumption that an article can be notable and pointless. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of this article is to inform on a topic that is notable. The charge of "pointlessness" sounds a lot like "I don't like it", which is not a valid rationale for deletion. Nick Graves (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - this topic is notable and will be remembered, but there is a lot of work to do to make this article neutral and more informative. H2O (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is so much coverage in reliable, independent sources that one sees it in every direction. Highly notable individuals like the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and New York; former governors Huckabee and Palin; and former senator Santorum have all weighed in on this issue. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage in RSs, but material would unbalance main article. William Avery (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - reeks of recentism and a povfork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.188.131 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the nominator's concerns about WP:RECENTISM, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOT. I also agree with Ryan Vesey's and John Carter's rationales; I think this could be covered adequately in the parent article, and would prefer to avoid forking controversial content when it doesn't seem necessary. So my unwavering conclusion is - just delete the page. B-watchmework (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing ramifications of proposed titleI would first state that yes, the same-sex marriage issues, which are clear, are the ones that people understand and have clear views on, which can be reported in an NPOV manner, and the term Same-sex marriage is the best AND most neutral. I would not want to edit based on the title until the AfD is concluded, but would point out that restricting it to Same-sex marriage issues would then exclude the then WP:COATRACK of what is called on the page "other LGBT Rights". Donations of WinShape to filers of amicus briefs is only about $6,000, and are designated funds, so even THAT isn't actually for political opposition to same sex marriage. The same sex marriage issues really come down to Cathy's comments, in an interview.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chick-Fil-A, which already has a Section on this subtopic. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've been seeing new news events around this story every week, it might have died down with the kiss-in but then that backlash was Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee calling for a national support day. Now it's turning into an election year issue as well that Romney hasn't yet offered any comment. Any neutral mention in the Chick-Fil-A would have to quickly turn into a large paragraph even if just mentioning each subsequent chapter causing undue weight in that article. The signing on of US mayors one after the next they a national chain is not welcome is news alone. We're past a tipping point. Insomesia (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The name should not include "same-sex marriage" as that is only one focus of some of the sources, the larger issue is anti-LGBT rights promotion. It's one level to state one doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, it's another to do so representing a large company. It's still another to fund anti-LGBT groups. Imagine if they were found to be supporting the KKK or a pro-Nazi group? There would be protests and shutdowns. Insomesia (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the comments were quite specific to gay marriage, so the title is descriptive. To go beyond that would create NPOV considerations. Shadowjams (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as renamed -- covering this within the CfA article would badly unbalance it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As renamed, it is restricted to Cathy's comments, free sandwiches to a PA group, and support for WinShape; that is all the Same-sex marriage controversy, and can be described by a small entry. The more diffuse and contentious issues, the allegations of groups WinShape supports being "anti-gay" or "hate groups", mostly do not directly relate to Chick-fil-A, but to WinShape, and should be mentioned and redirected there, or to EqualityMatters. Balance problem is easy to fix.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, that argument, while an argument, is very specifically not considered a valid one for use in AfDs, under WP:BHTT--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, BHTT refers to "unsourced material of no importance", which this doesn't qualify as. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WinShape is only notable as it's an entity controlled and bankrolled by the owners of Chick-Fil-A. I see no reason to treat it as a separate entity for the purposes of this discussion if it and Chick-Fil-A have the same individual holding the pursestrings. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh - this will die down in two more weeks. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seems to be a valid controversy here, and a full discussion of it would be rather long for the main CfA page. POV problems in this forked article should be dealt with in the usual fashion -- by successive edits to address both POVs and thereby bring it closer to a NPOV. And of course by the usual insistence on citing sources and Verifiability.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.