Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluoride poisoning


 * 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 - kept

Fluoride poisoning
This article is currently two sentences long, and any content here would be a duplicate of the information already in Fluoride and Water fluoridation. Tried changing to redirect, a user insists on reverting. Rhobite 02:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote. Someone else's noncompleted nomination. Mikkalai 02:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I JUST created this article and will include relevant information about the issue.  I require a few days to work on this article.  Then, you can decide if to keep or delete.--AAAAA 03:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Why keep it around as a stub then? You could always change it from a redirect at the same time that you added significant information to it. Right now it's a substub, and we delete substubs or turn them into redirects until they grow up. I still think that there is no possible information that could go in this article but be off-topic in one of the other two. Rhobite 03:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid topic of great public interest. The initial article was basically a disputed and controversial claim presented as fact, and there's now been an edit war featuring the same player, but that's not grounds for deletion. The debate over the redirect belongs in the talk page, not here. Andrewa 03:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the right place for a debate about whether an article should exist or redirect. Rhobite 04:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Andrewa 04:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given that Water fluoridation includes a section on the controversy, information that might go into this article would be more useful there.  AAAAA, if you think the opposition to fluoridation is slighted on Water fluoridation, it would help if you'd add your material there.  JamesMLane 03:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Water fluoridation is a valid topic too, but that article is currently listed on cleanup. With its current content it could be renamed the water fluoridation controversy, there is little else there. No change of vote. Andrewa 04:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Perfectly valid and encyclopaedic topic, and one that could easily become too long for inclusion in fluoride. It certainly shouldn't be part of water fluoridation, since it is much more general than that (e.g. there are claims for compensation being made by persons living near aluminium smelters who claim to have been harmed by volatile fluoride emissions, due to the use of cryolite.) However it could do with a bit of cleanup, and I certainly hope it doesn't stay as a list article with so little toxicological information. If it survives VfD, I might pop it on my ever-growing to-do list. Securiger 13:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 20:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, present version looks OK to me. I haven't followed the history, but the present article is long enough to stand on its own and does not seem to me to be a hidden attack on drinking water fluoridation. (I was once at a public meeting where a member of the public stood up and explained at some length how important it was not to confuse fluorIDE with fluorINE... and said that the easy way to remember the difference is remember that... the N in flouriNe stands for "nature's," and the D in fluoriDe stands for death!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Love it! For those who may not appreciate the irony of this, fluoride (the family of compounds) occurs in nature and in some forms appears quite harmless, and is even claimed to be beneficial. On the other hand the physical properties of fluorine (the element) were investigated relatively late in history partly because it tended to kill the researchers. No change of vote. Andrewa 02:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep present article is fine. Dsmdgold 04:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fine now. Editors should not put substubs on Wikipedia that they are working on. Work on it in your own disk space and load it up when it is ready. Otherwise you are trolling for VfD to pick you up. Jallan 18:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, the present version is fine. I agree with Jallan, putting up 2-sentence substubs with the intention of fixing them "later" isn't a great practice. Rhobite 20:02, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks fine now. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 08:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - almost all material is copied directly from Flouride and is redundant. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:24, 5 Oct 2004 (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.