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 no consensus to delete leaning toward keep. Please take the merge discussion to the appropriate article talk page(s). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction to the 2008 Dairy Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was created by User:Roman888, a serial copyright violator, possibly as a vehicle for his continued transgressions. Its existence outside from the 2008 baby milk scandal, which is itself (45k) hardly at a size where it is of concern, is potentially a POV fork, so I do not see a justification for retaining this article at this present time. Please note that the creator is on the bench for his repeated copyright violations. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I do not believe the individual topic of the international reaction to this incident is long enough to warrant its own article and it should be merged into the original article. Although I cannot comment on the author's motives, assuming good faith would be appropriate. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, there is nothing to merge: everything, is already in the 2008 baby milk scandal article. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A split (or a complete trimming) is to be expected if the impact section is expanded to the point its begins to outgrow the rest of the article. As of right now the Impact section alone is now occupying some 30-40% of the article, but doesn't seem imbalanced enough yet. Neither is the article long enough as a whole to require a split. - Two hundred percent (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Split. I agree a split or a complete trimming from the main article should be carried out immediately. The number of reactions from international countries in the main article is now nearing 50% of the main article which warrants a spilt. As for the comments about serial violations by Ohconfucius, we should investigating him for serial vandalism of articles. I would support any action against him that will bench him for his serial vandalism violations- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman888 (talk • contribs) (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hahaha! Investigate away! Ohconfucius (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: as long as the article contains countries that don't react negatively (if there are some... North Korea perhaps?;) ) - then it is NPOV and fine. It's a legitimate topic and can be comprehensive in a way that a mere subheading in the main article wouldn't be. Previous bad behaviour by the creator is no reason to remove a page which has no problems. Malick78 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is just a fork of the the "Impact" section of the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: There is no problem whatsoever with this article as it list the countries in an alphabetical order and supports the main article. There is no reason to delete this article just because someone has a personal vendatta against the creator as this is a NPOV. The article is properly reference, only needs a bit of cleaning. 16:58, 30 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.247.112 (talk)
• Merge back into the main article. POV forking is not an accepted method of dealing with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge How is this not a part of the 2008 baby milk scandal Wiki Entry?!?! Oh wait, has anybody checked the entry? EVERYTHING IS ON IT ALREADY! Someone started a new entry just to have a list & he/she copied everything from the "2008 baby milk scandal" entry. Delete/Merge + Clean up ASAP. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything not duplicated into the main article. The topic is notable but I don't really see the point in breaking this out into something separate. 23skidoo (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There may not have been enough information for a separate article a few days ago, but there would b by now. (per Roman888's comment). 22:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• would be more useful to have a more complete list of products banned/affected by this issue worldwide. just my comments on this. but a good article to have - love the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.247.123 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per 23skiddoo X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but only with careful comparison. I've already removed or revised several copyright vios from the article. I would not be surprised if there are more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, per Two hundred percent's recommendation. The international reaction in the main article already exceeds 50% of the total content and is reaching 60% of the content space. Doing a comparison with the main article and this article, there is extra information of separate countries that this article that the main article doesn't have. I strongly suggest the main article deletes their part of the International Reaction and use this article instead. -Madsingh ^(talk) 23:190, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Preferably, I would suggest merging what is in the main article to this article if possible. Certain parts on specific counters are longer there than it is here, and vice versa. - Two hundred percent (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2008 (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.