Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspartame 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 Keep per WP:SNOW  Discussion of whether to merge with Aspartame is a separate matter. Consensus is clear that this material shouldn't be deleted. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork of Aspartame in order to vent junk science and provide a fringe forum. While some criticism is valid, it is and can be covered in the Aspartame article. DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that this reads like a WP:POVFORK of Aspartame, but I'm wondering if this is actually a legitimate article split (if the section was too bulky in the main article) that has, over time, become full of anti-aspartame PoV. Perhaps this article just needs trimming of PoV and, if that results in a large amount of it being removed, being merged back into the appropriate section of Aspartame. I'll wait for any opinions from people more involved in the article. ~ mazca  t 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, per the comments below Keep seems reasonable, though this needs a vigorous de-PoVing. There is a controversy with valid points on both sides, so once properly balanced this is a valid article split - there's plenty of sourced info here already to build on. ~ mazca  t 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Aspartame. It's a fork. Alexius08 (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a fork, but an application of summary style. If it is to be merged back into aspartame, someone will have to trim it to a reasonable length. Will that happen within 5 days? I doubt it. In any case, the merging can be handled via the normal editing process and doesn't require deletion. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but maybe neutralise again. There is enough material about this to make it a regular article (there are quite some about controversies related to medicine, medical procedures, food additives).  If merged into the main article again (where it indeed was forked out), the information will again disperse through that article, with that section keeping to grow.  IMHO, if there are enough people that feel that that subject needs to be expanded to such an extend as it has been in the history in aspartame, then it warrants an own article.  Whether outside or inside the aspartame article, it will be a long-lasting fight to keep it neutral.  Aspartame is about the chemical compound, and its properties and uses, not about the controversies along it (that should have just a small section, pointing to the main article).  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a Comment: The articles aspartame and aspartame controversy both are huge, having respectively 22 and 89 references (5 overlapping). I think that that shows that the latter does have quite a merit to be a valid article (I did not check if there were duplicate references in those 89, but a quick scan of the pubmed numbers did not show any obvious duplicates).  The latter really has to be trimmed down to 2-3 paragraphs will it be suitable to fit into aspartame again.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a pov fork. Aspartame is not the same thing as the controversy over it. This is the appropriate place for the criticism of the chemical and rebuttals to it. The controversy was notable enough that merging would be unnatural.  Isolating such controversy articles is a good way of presenting information the way most readers would want it - the mainstream consensus or undisputed views in the main article, and other views mainly presented in the controversy article, instead of making the main article unreadable. Neutralization should be performed by normal, and if necessary, bold editing, not deleting encyclopedic topics. Wikipedia should provide a forum for junk science, and for invalid fringe criticism -- if the rest of the world already has -- if it is clearly notable, sourced junk.John Z (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up - Needs balancing, but this is a major area of discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep There is plenty of scope to discuss and describe the Aspartame controversy, and not all of that discussion belongs on the main Aspartame page. If there is junk science on the controversy page, that page needs to be fixed.  Merging it won't solve anything. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major, ongoing area of discussion, with plenty of non-trivial (and, I might add, non-fringe) sources. To merge with the main article would render the main too long. Any other considerations are content issues, not AFD-related. 23skidoo (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research by synthesis; pov fork. The article is a platform for the "vocal activism" it describes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. --Banime (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Look at the real science of the chemical formula of this drug called aspartame compared to a barbiturate:

Aspartame C14 H18 N2 O5 Phenobarbital C12 H12 N2 O3

As you can see, there are only slight differences in the number of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms in a molecule of aspartame vs. phenobarbital. Phenobarbital DOES pass through the blood-brain barrier, which gives it its properties of anesthesia, hypnosis, and sedation. The claim that aspartame does not pass through the blood-brain barrier is thus pure hogwash (to put it mildly), as its chemical formulae is nearly identical to phenobarbital. Thus the effects of aspartame in the brain are real; it affects the entire mechanism of hunger and thirst as it is a powerful drug which is chemically similar in formula to Phenobarbital. People can become confused about hunger and thirst sensations under the influence of a powerful psychotic drug, by "crossing the wires" of different senses. This is not about "junk science", it is about "junk business", more specifically selling junk as business. How much money is behind the attempt to remove any controversy about aspartame? All the money in the world that wants to steamroll over opposition to selling anything to anybody, with no government interference. The mantra that "all regulation is bad" is all over this attempt to muzzle free speech. The only way aspartame can even be sold is if strong regulation is watered down, which is how it got approved in the first place. The stuff look like Phenobarbital, which is called "truth serum", and if phenobarbital can "cross people's wires" so they can be knocked out or put into hypnotic trances then it aspartame sure as hell can have similar effects...as the chemical formulas are nearly identical. Wake up people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.200.28 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above comment, which I've added the 'unsigned' tag to and now moved to its correct chronological spot in this discussion, is a good example of bad science; it's almost parodically inaccurate. A rudimentary understanding of organic chemistry could expose the errors. For clarity, I'd emphasise that I do think aspartame is unpleasant and possibly unhealthy, and that I do think this article should be kept; but I don't think it should be kept because I'm critical of aspartame, and that I don't believe in the validity of pseudoscience like the above. (If anyone cares, obv.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with AlexTiefling here. As tempting as it is to write a lengthy and hilarious rebuttal of the concept of "the empirical formulae are similar so the effects must be too", this is not the place for this argument - there are valid reasons to keep this article outside of the legitimacy of aspartame's criticism - whether founded in good science or misconceptions. ~ mazca  t 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability and sourcing appear to be unquestionable, and the article is too big to really be merged anywhere. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Aspartame, which could use some expansion anyway. As for length, this could use some trimming, but the controversy is about as famous as the substance itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a merge would only cause detrimental edit wars to the overall Article that I believe would detract from the positions put forth by both Articles as separate Articles. Yes, I would encourage Editors watchlist both if they are involved with one, but we are here to inform and spread Wikilove :), not to purposely instigate revert wars.. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article with 90 references is too long to merge. Perhaps rename to "Criticism of ..." or similar, and provide a WP:SUMMARY in the main article. VG &#x260E; 07:19, 21 October 2008 (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.