The result was no consensus. The vote count is pretty even here, and both sides have advanced reasonable arguments for their positions. The main thrust of the delete !voters was that this is an example of WP:RECENTISM, although several editors also cited concerns about a WP:POVFORK violation. These are fairly strong arguments for deletion. On the other hand, a number of keep !voters cited the degree of coverage that this received as evidence of permanent notability. Other keep !voters expressed confidence that POV issues had been/are being remedied. So, the keep arguments seem pretty strong to me, as well. Since there are roughly even amounts of fairly strong arguments, I'm confident in saying that the community has failed to reach a consensus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: The page has been renamed to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Appears to be a WP:POVFORK spun off with zero discussion from Chick-fil-A#Controversy_regarding_LGBT_issues, which is currently seeing heavy POV editing and conflict among editors. Topic is notable but smacks of WP:RECENTISM (note RECENTISM and NPOV tags currently placed on parent article). Most events are scarcely 30 days old and establishing lasting notability necessarily requires use of WP:CRYSTAL. Absent additional developments, the section in the parent article needs to be pared down to avoid WP:UNDUE, not spun-off into a new article. Belchfire- TALK 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The vote count is pretty even here, and both sides have advanced reasonable arguments for their positions. The main thrust of the delete !voters was that this is an example of WP:RECENTISM, although several editors also cited concerns about a WP:POVFORK violation. These are fairly strong arguments for deletion. On the other hand, a number of keep !voters cited the degree of coverage that this received as evidence of permanent notability. Other keep !voters expressed confidence that POV issues had been/are being remedied. So, the keep arguments seem pretty strong to me, as well. Since there are roughly even amounts of fairly strong arguments, I'm confident in saying that the community has failed to reach a consensus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: The page has been renamed to 2012 Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Appears to be a WP:POVFORK spun off with zero discussion from Chick-fil-A#Controversy_regarding_LGBT_issues, which is currently seeing heavy POV editing and conflict among editors. Topic is notable but smacks of WP:RECENTISM (note RECENTISM and NPOV tags currently placed on parent article). Most events are scarcely 30 days old and establishing lasting notability necessarily requires use of WP:CRYSTAL. Absent additional developments, the section in the parent article needs to be pared down to avoid WP:UNDUE, not spun-off into a new article. Belchfire- TALK 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply