Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvage meat

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. Unsourced and no evidence that reliable sources exist. Overwhelming consensus that this term is not notable and should be deleted. A redirect to Pink slime would not be a good idea since this term is not used in the target. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage meat

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

Page creator removed PROD, nominating for deletion as the page creator seems to be on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade, and this article is actually more a dictionary definition of a term the user seemingly made up Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PR woman for pink slime uses the term and it is in common usage to refer to meat industry waste byproducts. I simply started a stub so that it can incubate on wikipedia.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pink Slime. The term is a non notable neologism, and the article may thus be simply too soon. The usage of the words salvage and meat next to each other are usually the verb and the noun in the accusative case, thus part of to salvage... meat. At present the sole references I can find to the neologism salvage meat are self published sources. Thus a logical solution is to redirect this stub to the real article. When and if the term becomes notable it may have its own article with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the nomination to be in bad faith IMHO since it was nominated just minutes after creation from a user the followed me from a dispute on another article topic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. Unsourced, and appears to be have been written to support the jihad against BLBT. Utterly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Horologium (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think one must be careful of emotive language when discussing a deletion. Please treat this article on its own merits. Ordinary readers of Wikipedia do not look at what is going on behind the scenes. The article as it stands has no merits. The Pink Slime article has merits, though appears to be undergoing frequent changes right now. As with all Wikipedia articles consensus will prevail there, as it will here. The purpose of redirection is to aid members of the reading public, not to make a point. If folk enter this term into Wikipedia following media controversy then it is reasonable to lead them towards Pink Slime. That does not endorse the term Salvage Meat, it simply points them to the logical target of their search. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. The only Reliable Sources I could find with the word "salvage" preceding "meat" didn't use it as a noun, but as verb/noun, as in "to salvage meat from bones." This article appears to be a possibly good faith attempt to use Wikipedia to WP:SOAPBOX against the dreaded Pink Slime. The article was nominated in good faith by an editor who simply noticed the creator wasn't very clear on Wikipedia policies, such as WP:GNG, WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:VERIFY and others. First Light (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. That's an easy call, no need to call into question motivations of either the content-creator or the nominator. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect as non-notable unsourced neologism. -- The Anome (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up term. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, we are not a dictionary. Second, it does have a wind of breaking WP:NPOV. Third, most of what I found in a quick gsearch, if you will forgive my pedantry, was 'salvage' as a verb, not as an adjective. Overall, while I am assuming good faith on the part of the author, something more concrete needs to explain what salvage meat is - maybe in more detail, but definitely with some good sourcing for the purpose. I have no prejudice to a new article if this comes about. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism dicdef. --Carnildo (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, no need for redirect, and is it snowing in here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and consume.' MMMM this does taste kinda good.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, binge, and purge I think Imma be sick now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:57, 6 April 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.