Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foie gras 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Major POV Fork of a contentious article without consensus. Delete until consensus on a split can be achieved. Localzuk(talk) 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant POV fork. Mangoe 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - WP:POVFORK may apply. As far as I can tell, the section headers are the same as those in the controversy section of Foie gras. An external article is not a bad idea in theory, but I see no reason why the controversy can't be covered in the main article. This is editorial (I'm a bit mergist); having another article does not, in this case, afford or deny more or less detail. Grace notes T § 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - At the time I split the articles into two, the Foie gras article exceeded Wikipedia's recommended length, and more importantly, was about 70 percent devoted to negative and controversial material. That's undue weight in the worst way. However, most of the info was valid and sourced and good encyclopedic writing, so I didn't see any reason to delete any of it just to make the article fairer - thus, the logical thing to do was it to devote an article to the well-documented controversy. It's funny, the anti-Foie Gras people seem to think I've done it just to "sterilize" the issue (that was the word one person used on the talk page) - but it's just the opposite, I mean, heck, I gave the subject its own article, fer cryin' out loud! Finally, devoting a "controversy article" to a subject is most certainly not a POV fork when there's so much detailed proof that this controversy exists as an independent subject worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Consider Scientology controversy, Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, Seigenthaler controversy, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Global warming controversy, Creation-evolution controversy, Hacker definition controversy, Video game controversy, Aspartame controversy, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Mims-Pianka controversy, 2007 Timbaland plagiarism controversy, GNU/Linux naming controversy, Stem cell controversy, Hockey stick controversy, Vaccine controversy, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Hot Coffee minigame controversy, Investiture Controversy, Native American name controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy, Breast implant controversy, Christmas controversy, Easter controversy, Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy, Biopsychiatry controversy, American Idol controversy, Arctic Refuge drilling controversy, Water fluoridation controversy, Karmapa controversy, Chinese Rites controversy, Bangorian Controversy, Flying Imams controversy, Santorum controversy, etc., etc. wikipediatrix 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, striking weak vote. I wasn't positive that you intended to cut down the section in the main article, which I see has been done. Thank you. Grace notes T § 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been controversial in the U.S. for many years. I have seen numerous newspaper article and TV news stories about proposals to outlaw it in certain cities and the angry response of gourmands and chefs. There is enough notable controversy for its coverage in Wikipedia, and if it makes the main article too long, then it needs a stand-alone article. Edison 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The controversy itself is notable on it's own. The controversy section was overloading the main article, which does create an undue weight problem.  "Controversy" (and "Criticism of") articles are not POV forks on their face, but they certainly can be manipulated and need close watching. SchmuckyTheCat 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable subject of its own and with accepted precedent at Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per wikipediatrix. Clerks. 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per SchmuckyTheCat.--Boffob 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikipediatrix. I'm pretty sure I've heard a long radio programme about it on the World Service; controversy is notable in its own right. --YFB ¿  18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. In addition to wikipediatrix rationale, please keep in mind that importance of Foie Gras "controversy" section has been repeatedly questioned in a course of past few months on grounds of being artificially boosted. The main reason anti-FoieGras editors are opposing the separation was and continues to be an attempt to piggyback on a popularity of the Foie Gras subject. If the controversy is as substantial as they claim, it deserves its own article. Alex Pankratov 18:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Foie gras = oral rape for poultry, so why not have an article? //// Pacific PanDeist * 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Making all the controversial issues into a separate page is totally POV Forking. Controversy is inherent in the subject of foie gras these days and needs to be included in the main article. Making it into a separate article with a small link and reference is a clear attempt at keeping that information from readers. GingerGin 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I've never heard of the creation of a Wikipedia article and a link to that article described as something that keeps information from readers. wikipediatrix 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate your condescending tone. I am entitled to my opinion and do not deserve personal attacks regarding my posts. Please stop harassing me and keep to the Wikipedia rules about being polite.GingerGin 00:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You accused me of making "a clear attempt to keep that information from readers". Now that's a personal attack. Was I not supposed to have a reaction to that? Please accept my profuse apology for rising to your bait. wikipediatrix 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. This is something that should be being handled on the talkpage of both Foie gras controversy and Foie gras (well, ok, preferably only on one of them, but still...), not on AFD.  Tom e rtalk  22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per wikipediatrix, the undue weight argument prevails over POV fork for me. If it is a POV fork, then lets edit it to be a non-POV fork, because clearly the article needed splitting. The controversy section in foie gras can be fattened up expanded however. hateless 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. And replace all the controversy info back in the main article.  Having a separate controversy page is being used as an excuse to keep a picture of force feeding (inherent in foie gras production) out of the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelBrock (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Um....no, actually, that has nothing to do with why I created this article. Please follow WP:AGF. wikipediatrix 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The information should either be included in the main article or kept in a separate article, and I think it works as a separate article due to length concerns.  For subjects with much controversy, it works well to have a completely separate article.  Many cities including Chicago have said that they may ban foie gras, so this is highly notable.  As Wikipediatrix noted above, precedent exists for these types of articles as separate entities.--Gloriamarie 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable71.113.238.56 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, makes perfectly good sense to have a subarticle on this. Everyking 17:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Now if I only had $1 for every Wikipedia article which had "controversy" in the title... RFerreira 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work, but this is definitely worth having an article about. I've heard about this in the news and seen it in the papers, so obviously it's noteable. Jtrainor 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is encyclopedic, there are sources. --Richard 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This sounds like a fairly serious issue in some areas, and the content's too long for the main article. Jjacobsmeyer 09:33, 8 May 2007 (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.