Deletion of Monsanto public relations activities

Comment: A proper  should be done by adding to the Monsanto page and, if it is found that the public relations activities of the company are over-burdening the parent article, the right way to spin-out a new article can be handled with the appropriate summary style and links back. Right now, this is a distraction made by an editor with a chip on their shoulder
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: some parts of the page into Monsanto. First of all, the Kevin Folta section is unbalanced to the point of having  issues, and should be entirely deleted, whatever else may be decided here. However, the other sections are encyclopedic and deal with issues that have attracted sufficient notice that they are worth covering, and doing so is not inherently POV. I'm actually rather surprised that the Monsanto page does not already have a section about PR, and so some of the material here would be very appropriate to merge into a dedicated PR section there. But I agree with the nom that, as a standalone page, this is a POV fork. The only rationale for splitting out a standalone page about Monsanto PR would be to attribute to the company's PR activities a greater notability than exists for the PR activities of so many other large corporations, and objectively that does not exist. Basically, the argument that Monsanto should be treated by Wikipedia as a special case comes down to "Monsanto is bad" POV-pushing. I've looked through :Category:Public relations, and the nominated page stands out as the ''only'' page in the category that is about a single company (other than PR firms, of course). The closest thing is Public relations of high fructose corn syrup, but that is about a business sector, not an individual company. Nothing about PR activities of tobacco or fossil fuel companies, for which there would be far better rationales. So what we have here is a POV fork that contains some material that can usefully be merged into the parent page
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: A oint|disruptive OVFORK|advocacy article if ever I saw one. You can't just cherry pick all the negative press for one company and put it into an article and claim neutrality. The best sources should be merged back into the Monsanto one, maybe in its own section where it can be |balanced. Then if it grows to a size that justifies a |split it can then be pulled out. Outside of what is presented here there are many notable donations that Monsanto makes,http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/30/news/companies/hurricane-harvey-corporate-donations/index.html which due to the companies public image get their own protests (see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-bell/groups-around-the-us-join_b_600941.html this blog complete with scare quotes around donates and the poisoning the world conspiracy theory
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:POVFORK||WP:undue||WP:split)