Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Coca-Cola


 * 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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Coca-Cola
POV fork. Delete KleenupKrew 10:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't get it. How can an article that is titled "Criticism of *" ever be made NPOV?  The title isn't even NPOV.  Merging it should not bloat the main article either, if only the appropriate amount were merged, say, one single sentence for each legitimate criticism.  At the every least, if this is kept it needs to be renamed, something like "Controversies regarding Coca-Cola". KleenupKrew 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see this article from MSNBC and the discussion on Talk:The Coca-Cola Company for more background.  MSNBC slammed Wikipedia's coverage of Coke about 2 weeks ago for all the negative bias.  KleenupKrew 10:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. Along with other major producers of fizzy drinks, Coca-Cola attacts criticism on a wide range of issues. We can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen.Markb 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup to make NPOV. If this cannot be done, delete. --Coredesat 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. Viridae 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Coca-Cola. There's no justification for making this a separate article other than hoping to avoid discussion with editors of the Coca-Cola article, i. e. a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This article just needs to be made NPOV and it'll be fine. Nunc Aut Nunquam  Talk 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this much criticism would severely throw off the balance of the main article... there should be a section of criticism in that article with this being linked as the main article. It's not a POV fork... but a way to keep information without throwing off the balance of the main article. gren グレン 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per gren. Inserting this into the main article would bloat it unneccesarily. Just make sure it stays referenced and free of crackpot conspiracy theories and POV warriors. - Mgm|(talk) 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MGM. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:44Z 
 * Delete The article as it stands is garbage. Most of the criticism is generic and could be said about any number of products or companies. If it has sugar bought from America then it is benefiting from price supports and so tax payer money is going into greedy corporate pockets. If they buy third world sugar, then they are exploiting the poorly paid. If they use no sugar (diet), then they are charging for a product with nonnatuaral ingrediants. This kind of criticism is unencyclopedic and only useful in the marketing wars between the sugar-water sellers. Now, if someone whats to rewrite this in terms of Soft drink marketing wars, well that's a horse of a different color. WAS 4.250 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Criticism of articles are excellent flame-bait, but not encyclopedic -- MrDolomite 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree (I haven't decided)... but, we have lots of criticism of articles. It seems to me that there needs to be a discussion about that in the context of the whole encyclopedia.  There are already lots of "criticism of" articles and to me it seems more neutral to keep them all rather than delete a few of them. gren グレン 22:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article can't be made NPOV. It should be integrated into the main article, after cutting down to an proportionate length. Calsicol 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the main article should summarize the most notable criticisms. That's no basis for deletion, though.  If that kind of "cutting down" were instead of a separate article, rather than in addition to it, then we would lose information that some readers might want. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, criticism is common, needs to be more NPOV though --Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per gren and MGM but agree with those who say the article needs cleanup, particularly in presenting both sides of the criticisms. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to The Coca-Cola Company - according to Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola, this merge/redirect is the intention of the editor working on the page anyway, so any worries about "losing information" would appear to be unfounded. Under the current inflammatory title, it is intrinsically WP:NPOV. Maybe it was moved out because the mother article was/is undergoing peer review? It should go back there anyway. --DaveG12345 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep. Based on newer information at Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola, there appears to be a reasonable rationale to keep this. --DaveG12345 05:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Criticism are, usually, not neutral. However, they can be reported from a neutral POV, that's what we do in Wikipedia. Afonso Silva 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You don't delete articles because they have a POV! And it's a criticism, which means that it looks at the negative things about the topic in question. Anyways, if it does not follow WP:NPOV you can just fix it up and it will be good. Fr e ddie Message? 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - wikipedia signpost mentions that this was branched off the main article in response to newspaper criticism that the negative parts of the main coca-cola company article were given too much prominence - re-merging would not really help in that case. - Master Of Ninja 13:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article solves a number of problems. -- Stbalbach 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A relevant article: keep -- Splette [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] Talk 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, summarize criticism and add such summary to main article as per Content forking. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:56, 26 June 2006 (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.