Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration

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

This article has been tagged for WP:NPOV for over a year now. It is getting ridiculous. This article is nothing more than a partisan screed attacking the FDA. While I agree with most of the points the article makes, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't think this article ever has the capacity to be neutral. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep POV problems can be addressed by editing the article, not deleting it. The article's references are strong and support WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. This is an enormously important subject.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I was expecting to see a much worse article. Plenty of refs, what side is it biased toward?  Nobody seems to have discussed the neutrality tag for six months, it should be taken off if controversies are so inactive.John Z (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Much better than expected--this is very close to a fully satisfactory article; with  a little attention to selection of the good  representative documentation out of the great mass that has become available. Someone needs to volunteer to guide it. DGG (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — I don't think it's synthesis, so I cannot find any other reason for deletion. Criticism articles can be written neutrally if great care is taken with the sources. MuZemike 08:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SNOW keep. Afd is not clean-up and we are always improving articles. The FDA is a major federal administration that has existed for many years. Criticisms can be found in and sourced to numerous media including books, newspapers and documentaries. POV issues is a clean-up concern. -- Banj e  b oi   08:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from http://www.fdareview.org/ the references are solid and the article about the FDA itself is too long already to include a well-reasoned and complete coverage of the relevant criticism. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep subarticle of main FDA article, and contains well referenced POVs. Even if not neutral (it's unclear that it is in fact non neutral, and on the contrary, seems reasonably well sourced), removal of articles that have not achieved NPOV yet makes no sense in nearly all cases, and NPOV cannot ever be perfect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (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.