Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormonal meat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hormonal meat

Hormonal meat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The references for this article don't refer to 'Hormonal meat' - they are google searches for a whole long list of terms using OR separators between each. If you look up "hormonal meat" its 511 hits, and none seem to qualify as a reliable source for this term actually being used. Should be deleted, or possibly merged with a GMO-related article. AvruchTalk 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that more standard references have been added - but they still don't appear to actually mention the words 'Hormonal meat.' AvruchTalk 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unnotable term. Ra2007 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider moving to a title which actually is more widely used such as "Hormones in meat" which gets 184 results in Google news search [1] compared to 7 for "hormonal meat" [2], several of which refer to the "hormonal meat" of the "meatmarket" in pubs, not the sort which is sold in stores and restaurants. The articles about growth hormones in meat show worldwide coverage over many years of the concerns on the part of responsible scientists that early puberty may be a result. Edison (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not written that well, that's for sure. But it seems to have coverage per Edison. Weak keep.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. What does GMO have to do with hormonal meat? The fact that you think they are related says enough about your ignorance on the subject. Please do not nominate for deletion articles you do not understand. Rather, ask for expansion. Thank you. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I realize that genetically modified and hormonally stimulated are not the same thing. Thanks for pointing out my 'ignorance'. Do you have a... policy reason for keeping the article, since the term 'hormonal meat' doesn't appear to be used (and thus constitutes an OR synthesis)? AvruchTalk —Preceding comment was added at 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you realise that they are different things, then why did you make the suggestion to merge? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I said GMO-related because the issues are similar. I wasn't suggesting that they were scientifically the same thing. AvruchTalk 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Give me the right tools and I'll make them the same thing. Please be civil in the meantime. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Being civil does not mean just using polite words, it also means behaving politely. Proposing for deletion an article (without trying to improve it) that someone contributed and spent some time writing is more uncivil than using word 'ignorance' that by the way is not a rude word.
Ignorance - The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
Lakinekaki (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. None of the reasons given for deletion concern the subject of the article, only the title. Changing the title is an editing issue, not an issue for discussion at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article is an OR synthesis, and it frames the subject. If the subject, framed by the title, constitutes original research then the content of the article belongs somewhere else, perhaps in an article about natural foods, naturalist activism, free range initiatives/ organizations, hormones, or meat. The article as it was written added no realiable, notable, verifiable etc. information to the encyclopedia, which is why I proposed deleting it. Since Uncle G has completely and admirable rewritten it it is in much better shape now. AvruchTalk 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with an appropriate renaming, perhaps Beef hormone dispute or something similar. As currently written, this is worthy of note, but "hormonal meat" is a meaningless term. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename seems the subject matter meets WP:N requirements as there are plenty of articles that discuss the Beef Hormone (debate, controversy, issue).[3] - GtstrickyTalk or C 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. Notable, and sourced -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per above. Orphic (talk) 09:27, 15 December 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.