Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption of Tide Pods (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This was very recently at AfD, both WP:SKCRIT and WP:SKCRIT might apply here, and I'm invoking WP:SNOW for an early close. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Consumption of Tide Pods
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Tide PODS) Stats )

Article seems to be promoting consumption of tide pods, which is a very bad idea. At a minimum the article needs to be rewritten. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The article already states these three things, and I would claim this does not encourage the actual consumption of Tide Pods. While the article does not actively discourage the eating of Tide Pods, I don't think Wikipedia should take an editorial stance condemning the literal consumption of Tide Pods, as that is out of our scope as an encyclopedia. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. Does Suicide methods promote methods of poisoning? Should it be deleted? By your logic, this article cannot possibly exist.  Ꞷ  umbolo   14:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are specific reasons why the wiki review process deletes articles. The rationales above are a moral judgement and a need for copyediting. Wiki does not delete for either of these reasons. See WP:N for inclusion / exclusion criteria.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia covers all notable events and trends. Casting moral judgement on the consumption of Tide Pods is outside the scope of Wikipedia. We're supposed to cover the facts and what reliable sources say about Tide Pods. In this case, we can say that:
 * 1) Eating Tide Pods is not good for one's health.
 * 2) The makers of Tide Pods are strongly against eating Tide Pods, and encouragements to eat them.
 * 3) The unanimous opinion of reliable sources is that actually eating Tide Pods is a bad idea, because it would harm the person eating them.
 * Speedy Keep per criteria 3. This article does not promote the consumption of Tide Pods as the nominator suggests. To the contrary, much of the article is about the lethal consequences of eating tide pods; there is even a little skull symbol and notice in the lede summary to highlight the dangers involved. Further, this article's last AfD was closed less than three weeks ago with the decision to keep, and nothing affecting the article's notability has changed since then. Spirit of Eagle (talk)
 * Keep; it's notable and has appeared in a huge number of sources. My main concern is the title and tone of the article; it isn't only tide pods, but also other detergent pods which are being consumed, and the article overall needs some Wikilove. I'll see about making it sound more encyclopedic this evening. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (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.