Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsanto modified wheat mystery


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto modified wheat mystery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a POV fork of text from Genetically_modified_food_controversies, see Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies so as to be used as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. This is WP:NOT material and a summary of it is already given in the main article at Genetically_modified_food_controversies. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a crock of crap, IRWolfie. It is a split resulting from the above consensus that a new article was needed to not bloat the other one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a very odd reading of that discussion. You created the fork without discussion after it was decided that giving it more weight at Genetically modified food controversies was undue. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but that's what it looks like to me, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your term fork is incorrect. It is a split of material that consensus found added too much bloat to the article. WEIGHT has nothing to do with sourced content additions. It has to do with balancing neutrality. This article is very neutral with no weight added to any side. It simply states the facts without any opinions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a bad faith AfD to keep sourced and relevant material from our readers. Consensus in the above article agreed that a split would be needed to keep the bloat down in the original article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think the sourcing is adequate to meet WP:N. I'd like to see the several uncited sentences in a row covered by a source or two. (However, I'd be equally happy if, due to WP:ONEEVENT WP:EVENT this was merged back into the original article, condensed quite a bit. People can read the refs for more details.) --Lexein (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (Modified 00:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant information back to Genetically modified food controversies. This was created solely because there wasn't consensus to have the information there, and, while the consensus amount of information that exists is worthwhile, this is not enough to sustain an article.  Delete is my second choice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The creation of this article did not require agreement at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies although it is relevant whether the material is also covered at Genetically modified food controversies or whether it should be. To me the present balance between the articles looks about right but this is not a concern for AfD. The topic seems to me to readily pass the WP:GNG threshold and seems a suitable and viable basis for an article. If there are legitimate POV concerns (and the article looks OK to me) these should be dealt with by normal editing. With this amount of responsible media coverage the topic shouldn't be inherently POV. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The incident seemed to have received a lot of media attention, which probably puts it past WP:Not news. Of course this is one of those areas where there is a lot of agenda-pushing on all sides, but the article seems neutral enough to be informative to people interested in learning about the incident/ controversy event. Borock (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep With press coverage like "According to a New York Times article, the discovery could have threatened U.S. wheat exports, which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012; the US is the world's largest wheat exporter"this would appear to be a notable incident that can stand on its own.
 * Also, the titled reads "mystery", not "controversy".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is no real controversy involved.  It does not belong in any "GMO controversies" article. Borock (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it's not a controversy, maybe List of unexpected GMO seed detections or List of unexpected modified seed detections should be an article containing this class of news items. I fully expect there to be more than one per year from now on. I pity the USDA. --Lexein (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "could have", but didn't. It would seem odd to hinge notability on what could have happened, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is enough mainstream press coverage that the page clearly passes WP:GNG; it may flirt with failing WP:ONEEVENT WP:EVENT, in terms of enduring coverage over time, but I think it comes out on the right side of it. Although the discussion that led to it being split off from the other page was marred by the unconstructive attitude of the editor who made the split, the page is not inherently a POV fork, because the content can be presented neutrally with some editing, and it follows a consensus at the other page to treat the material per WP:Summary style. The page title is a cause of concern, partly because of the strange word "mystery", but a page move can be discussed without a need to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * bah, someone can speedy close this if they want, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a six days left, so let's not close without more of us discussing WP:EVENT. I brought it up in my Keep !vote, hoping to stimulate discussion. Although it has a number of RS news articles, over several months, and it involved a huge multinational company and local, state and federal agencies, it is a single event. How do these WP:N requirements (mult RS over time vs one event) balance out for this article? In my opinion, this very early occurrence of surprise, unwanted GMO contamination will be of historical significance in 50 years. I'm still fine keeping, but would like to know that more other editors have thought about it. --Lexein (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * About EVENT, I agree with you that one can argue it quite reasonably either way. My parsing of it is that it is indeed a specific event but that there has been ongoing interest in that event, continuing over a period of time. We are, of course, dealing with the fact that it was an event this year, and consequently the picture may change over time, and my current opinion may change in the future. We may, in the future, want to make it more about escapes of GMO wheat in general, covering multiple events instead of this single one in Oregon 2013. Then again, maybe not, WP:CRYSTAL. One thing I'm quite convinced of, having followed the editing at Genetically modified food controversies, is that there are good reasons not to merge the material back there, but rather to treat it in WP:Summary style there and have the page discussed here as a standalone page, in some form – perhaps not its present form, but revised and not deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In re closure: From WP:AfD, "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as Speedy Keep #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for "keep", and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." In other words, I read this as IRWolfie can close it themselves, but IMHO highly partisan involved editors should not pounce while other editors want to discuss. --Lexein (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are generally along the same lines but I think the merge/delete !vote above precludes speedy closure. Also, my feeling is that the personal attacks have not derailed the discussion. Regarding the article, there is indeed a case to be made for this to fall into the WP:EVENT category but, like you, I thought the topic is quite possibly enduring. If I had thought the topic fitted well into "controversies" I would editorially have favoured a merge. However, the target article is long and this aspect is not directly a controversy though it probably generally contributes to a controversial GMO situation. There have been several GMO "mishaps" over the years and so a single article covering these could be constructed although it would be wide open to the criticism that it was only covering bad news. It is unfortunate (and inevitable) that our WP:NPOV policy only deals with balance within articles and does not concern itself with whether our articles as a whole present a balanced view of the world. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If my position precludes early closure, then I'll be glad to strike it. It's clear this won't get deleted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2013 (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.