Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coral Calcium Claims

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 delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Calcium Claims[edit]

This article is a fork of Coral calcium and is based on text that has been the subject of an edit war at that article. There really is no good reason for a separate article here; any content should be discussed at Coral calcium rather than being forked out at a separate article. I'd say this should be Deleted and inclusion discussed at the source article.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a historical note, I originally boldly deleted this article, but a few editors expressed reservations about this at deletion review, so I've undeleted and listed it here. Isotope23 ^talk 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My contention is that coral calcium itself has become a content fork of calcium, and to avoid confrontations with the creating editors, I created an article specifically to hold the POV content in a neutral setting. Please consider that WP:CFORK allows for this: Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. Magnonimous (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork of Coral Calcium. STORMTRACKER 94 17:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a POV fork, going so far as to copy text still existing in Coral Calcium.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I originally removed all the POV content from the original article, and transferred it to the new article.

Delete per nom and above. Also looks a bit look some original research to me, since it cites sources to help prove its arguements rather than citing sources that say the content of the article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, POV fork laden with original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Macy's 123 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook example of an inappropriate POV fork. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"POV fork laden with original research" Please keep in mind that half of this article has gone uncontested on the original Coral Calcium Page. Magnonimous (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that content forking specifically allows for articles about points of view, as long as the article as a whole is balanced by containing all notable views. Magnonimous (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (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.