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.
No evidence of notability. It can easily be merged into another article such as Genetically modified maize As it is now it just looks like spam. Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This particular AfD needs to just focus on the one article. You don't need AfD to propose merges. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do it all the time at commons, it keeps related image discussions all in one place so perhaps we should start here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MON 809 is already tagged for CSD redirected. I would keep the other two pages, as they clearly establish notability about content going beyond merely a single product. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:PRODUCT. "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is remotely a stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think this variety passes the WP:GNG. Although not all varieties do; I'm wary of applying an all-or-nothing approach to merging or deleting articles on GMOs because coverage varies. Anyway. In what way is the article spam? bobrayner (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:PRODUCT. "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. Merge target makes more sense, sending to list of varieties per Tryptofish. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; This article has substantial content, as does MON 810. This morning I played with merging content from these articles into the Genetically modified maize article as examples of GM maize. GM Maize would be by far the most appropriate merge target -- logically, these articles are forks of that article. While I would not oppose such a merge, bringing all the content from those two articles in, would a) cause that article to really balloon; and b) would make it harder for people really interested in understanding the specific story about each of these products to have a clear picture of the details. But in any case, MON 836 and MON 810 are each decent, NPOV, well-sourced articles and should not be deleted. They definitely meet WP:NOTABILITY standards, as indicated by the wealth of RS in each of them. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MON 863 and MON 810, which both pass WP:GNG. For starters, see sources in these articles for evidence of notability. Then, select links from the Find sources template at the header of this discussion for more reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:PRODUCT. "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not a stub. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stub can be in the eye of the beholder. To leave them all as separate articles is just free advertising for Monsanto. There is no logical nor policy reason they all can't be merged into a Monsanto GMO products article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information is useful for those who oppose GMOs, or anybody who wants to understand the product or its regulatory history. I do not see any promotional language in the article, so I do not understand on what basis you call it an "advertisement." Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that either page is a stub, and we have WP:STUB to define what that is. And I think that MON 810 is a very obvious "keep". But as for MON 863, I'm having trouble seeing what information it provides, that is not provided at MON 810orList of varieties of genetically modified maizeorGenetically modified maize. Simply having a lot of pages about any particular company's products does come across as being promotional, which is why I like the idea of listifying and redirecting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 things, I guess. MON 810 and MON 836 were the first GM corn products that Monsanto brought in the EU - the data on both of them submitted by Monsanto to regulatory authorities there were made available under court order, analysis of these 2 were what set Seralini off on his path. Both of them are notable for that. The second thing, is that it is not clear where a reader wanting to understand what BT proteins in particular are in what products can find that on the "list" page... Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article establish notability: [2]. and others, e.g [3],[4] and more found from basic search: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that none of the 3 sources mention 810 that I can see, so a merge should not be done, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
