Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat free lean index

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fat free lean index

article is a computerized listing from a skewed reference.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the article, I'm not putting up a fight -- I'm creating articles for lots of entries in a public-domain glossary of agricultural terms, and this is one of the more inferior entries. However, could you please enlighten me as to what these terms mean? ("a computerized listing from a skewed reference") Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep OK, in response to the AfD and a private communication by keystoneridin!, I added more content (i.e. the "history" section). I think this is enough to survive AfD now, but as a law student in New York I don't really have strong feelings towards articles on pork ;) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook

Comment: A notable metric is still notable. If this is widely cited in independent reliable sources it doesn't matter if the "standards body" is an industry group or a single person. Notable statements of opinion, as long as described that way, are ( correct me if I'm wrong ) suitable for inclusion. Many topics don't have known right-or-wrong answers and are still discussed. Calling this reference "skewed" doesn't change anything. The article may be biased or take a POV, and this would need to be fixed, but the fact that the topic expresses some bias wouldn't make it unencyclopedic ( there are articles on right-to-life and pro-aborttion groups AFAIK). Many situations are quantified with metrics or debatable "fairness" but they are still cited. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's a used index referenced here, here, here, and I note someone's actually written an academic journal article and done a study which uses it as a measurement. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable unit of measure within the agricultural industry. --Blargh29 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable index cited in a US government website. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (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.