Deletion of Monsanto modified wheat mystery

Comment: The incident seemed to have received a lot of media attention, which probably puts it past ot news.  Of course this is one of those areas where there is a lot of agenda-pushing on all sides, but the article seems neutral enough to be informative to people interested in learning about the incident/controversy''event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The creation of this article did not require agreement at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies although it is relevant whether the material is also covered at Genetically modified food controversies or whether it should be. To me the present balance between the articles looks about right but this is not a concern for AfD. The topic seems to me to readily pass the  threshold and seems a suitable and viable basis for an article. If there are legitimate POV concerns (and the article looks OK to me) these should be dealt with by normal editing. With this amount of responsible media coverage the topic shouldn't be inherently POV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is enough mainstream press coverage that the page clearly passes ; it may flirt with failing , in terms of enduring coverage over time, but I think it comes out on the right side of it. Although the discussion that led to it being split off from the other page was marred by the unconstructive attitude of the editor who made the split, the page is not inherently a POV fork, because the content can be presented neutrally with some editing, and it follows a consensus at the other page to treat the material per ummary style. The page title is a cause of concern, partly because of the strange word "mystery", but a page move can be discussed without a need to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:EVENT||WP:S)