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 redirect to List of varieties of genetically modified maize. Convert to a list article and redirect. There was a strong consensus not to maintain these article separately, and a rough consensus to convert them into a list. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MON 802

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating a series of articles on specific varieties of maize; some coverage exists, but all-in-all, they seem to fail WP:PRODUCT. May be suitably included in the pages of their respective companies, but as they stand, they present no useful, mergable information. Zujua (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, possibly listify There's naught more that directory info here, even if the directory can be cited. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of genetically modified crops or similar or failing that to Genetically modified maize. Individual lines are rarely notable and much better covered in a parent article as many of the criticisms will be the same. Would add MON 809 as a redirect too and consider merging MON 863 and MON 810 as well. AIRcorn (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and redirect. Sourcing is sufficient to justify a list entry, but not a standalone article. Kilopi (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information appears to be sourced to the company itself, so there's no reliable source information to compile into a list. If you want to close this and need another Listify for consensus, I agree. Otherwise, delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not sourced to the company but to a database provided by The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment[1]. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and redirect - Notable as part of a group, but not individually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 3 October 2012 (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.