Deletion of 2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy

Comment: Echoing what The Red Pen said, it is too early to know if this issue will end up being notable enough to justify a separate article. At the moment, it's a media firestorm, the long-term impact of which is very uncertain. We had a fairly extensive discussion on this last week on the CfA talk page, and consensus there reflected keeping the content where it was. For someone to say today that a new article is justified requires the use of a |crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I agree with the nominator's concerns about  and #NEWS. I also agree with Ryan Vesey's and John Carter's rationales; I think this could be covered adequately in the parent article and would prefer to avoid forking controversial content when it doesn't seem necessary. Alternately, per MuZemike, we could '''redirect''' the article back to Chick-fil-A and merge the relevant content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:TOOSOON really is just says "wait for  to be met." I don't think it's too credible to suggest that the topic doesn't have sufficient number of sources already to stand alone as an article. Renaming is an issue that can be considered separately
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If you merge the page, then more than half the page of the Chick-fil-A article will be about the same-sex marriage controversy, which distracts it from being a page about a "restaurant franchise specializing in chicken entrées". At the rate we are going, we'll end up screaming for  ont the Chick-fil-A article instead. As much as you disagree with its COO, the entire history of Chick-fil-A is not solely defined by his opinion and the controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: to Chick-fil-A#Controversy regarding same-sex marriage stance – It's a flash-in-the-pan news story, not a separate Wikipedia topic, and a POV fork to boot. There is no reason the information currently in the article can't be properly summarized and included in the main article and not follow our |undue weight guideline
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Obvious  with a nonsensical title. It's already covered in the Chick-fil-A article from which much of the content was copy and pasted. The new article conflates two different issues: gay marriage and freedom of speech, and borders on 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SYN)

Comment: as .  This can be adequately covered in Chick-fil-A.&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I agree with the nominator's concerns about , , and #NEWS. I also agree with Ryan Vesey's and John Carter's rationales; I think this could be covered adequately in the parent article, and would prefer to avoid forking controversial content when it doesn't seem necessary. So my unwavering conclusion is - just delete the page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOT)