Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection

Animal protection

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

Contested PROD: This seems to be a single-purpose advocacy/opinion article, and is pretty much just a copy of [1]. There's no way to objectively validate its list of "nations and their components of animal protection (listed in descending order of relevance, the left most component is the most relevent)" - it just seems to be a single author's opinions from a piece of original research. Actually, to delete the current new version of the article, it should presumably be reverted to the 2008 redirect version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted. The issue addressed in the article is reported by two peer reviewed work with multiple authors. Both original work can be accessed online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed work is still a primary source and thus represents original research and a specific point of view. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) to determine notability and to enable an article to be written from a neutral point of view. You can't just state the conclusions of original research as if they were fact, and you can't use original research to redefine a commonly-used term. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sources and reference 1, 2, 3 of the article are secondary source of reference 4, reference 5 are secondary source of reference 1,3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as POV fork, either to animal rights or animal welfare. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as at Sep 2008 was to Animal rights -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

animal protection does not equal to animal welfare or animal rights, please see references 1 to 4 of the article. Therefore it should not be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep The expression seems to be notable enough from the sources. The article should be rewritten so that it is explained. The list of countries should go. You would not have a list of people ranked by intelligence in the article on Intelligence, for instance. Borock (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection", and no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition. I really don't see how an article here promoting one particular definition can be seen as anything but POV-pushing. There may be a notable movement in favour of some form of definition, but unless there is widely accepted definition (in the wider word, not just amongst "animal protection" people), then I don't think this particular POV should be allowed to usurp a common term here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good information provided 1) 'There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection"', yes, therefore its an important term and should has a page on Wikipedia, therefore should not be deleted. 2)'no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition', agree. Therefore redirect it to animal welfare or animal rights are also not universally accepted. As references shows, there are people disagree with it. Therefore the proposed redirection should also not be a solution for Wikipedia. The information provided in the argument shows, people should edit and improve the article instead of delete it or redirect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the information about the nations should go, then where to put them? In a separate article? It might be too short, wikipedia have articles about people's IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information about the nations shouldn't be anywhere, because it is primary-sourced original research and personal opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the study methods, it was based on statistic analysis of opinions of over 4000 people in euroasia. If this is 'personal' opinion, then can someone provide more reliable source (not 'personal') to support the redirection (animal protection equals to animal rights)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, source can support the redirection should also be provided to show its not a 'personal opnion' and 'primary research'.

Delete and redirect to Animal welfare. Animal protection, per the sources, is distinct from Animal rights, but it really is just an alternative wording for animal welfare, another, less standard, way of saying the same thing. The arguments to keep on the basis of numbers of Google hits fail to reflect that reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable source to support that animal protection 'is just an alternative wording for animal welfare'. It has to be reliable source and not personal opinions and primary research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection can mean animal welfare, animal rights, wildlife conservation, respect animals or other things in different context and different parts of the world. Most notably, in many nations, wildlife protection is a major part of animal protection. In Spain keeping animal in the zoo is against the idea of animal protection (protección de los animales).In fact animal protection is a collection of all these positive attitudes. Sources for the statement in this paragraph was in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

number of pages of different terms in googleanimal protection-7,510,000; animal welfare-7,390,000;animal rights-'81,600,000'. If animal protection should be deleted, why animal welfare should keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is a good case for an article called "Animal protection". But the article you have now isn't even close to being suitable - all it is is a publication of some of the conclusions of one specific study, by Dr Jenia Meng - it is not a treatment of the general usage of the term "animal protection" at all.

Also, will you please STOP spamming links to your new article all over the place while this discussion is ongoing. if the article survives, in whatever form, then you can link it elsewhere as appropriate - but you should only add "See also" links that are directly relevant to the topic (and not to any article that happens to have an animal in it, or is about a country that happens to have animal laws, etc). And Wikilinking terms should only be done when they specifically refer to the target of the link. The multiple usages of the phrase "animal protection" that you have linked so far are most definitely not references to your report on the conclusions of Dr Meng. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'You may edit the article during the discussion. You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion this is wikipedia policy, editing is encouraged, also those editing of adding internal links were constructive and was aiming to helping people when reading. Only page have the term of animal protection or similar meaning was linked, those were not spam. There are plenty of wikipedia page are lot shorter and this one. Why this is not suitable? If you know how to make it suitable, improve it, be constructive! Don't stop others good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can edit the article - that's a core part of the AfD process. But that doesn't mean you can spam links to it all over the place (I've removed dozens so far, from all sorts of inappropriate places). And the uses of the term "animal protection" that you recently linked were NOT referring to the conclusions of Dr Meng, which is all your article is currently about. Links need to be correct in context, and "See also" sections should be used only for links to other major articles of direct importance to the subject - not for any article that just happens to use the same words. An important thing here is that if this article does not survive the deletion discussion, your links will create a lot of work for whoever has to remove them all - if you were left to link things however you see fit, there'd be hundreds by the end of the week. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why those nations were linked. If one have read the article carefully, one can find the article has giving defitions of animal protection in 12 nations. Thats why those articles of the 12 nations were linked. It has the definition of animal protection in the nation. Those were not spam!! --Youdontownwiki (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To CITES, its a international animal protection agreement, why this article can not be linked?--Youdontownwiki (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can turn this into an article of encylopedic quality, then the CITES article might be a good one to link from - but as it currently stands, this is just not a good-enough article to be used as a major "See also" article - and you really should hold off adding links until we know whether this article is going to survive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)you initiate the debate, if it is deleted then you have significant responsibility. 2) if animal protection is deleted, it will be one of the biggest joke in wikipedia. 3) There are review process after deletion, deleted article can be restored. Its a place to serve for the humanity, to share up to dated knowledge, not a place for some kids to exercise their control desire and ignorance. thanks--Youdontownwiki (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible copyright violation of [2] and as attempt to describe a topic with no consistent definition, but whose alternative definitions are already covered in other articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That webpage you just cited does not has copy right declaration, it can be used. no single exsiting articles address the diversity of this definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All intellectual creations are protected by copyright unless it is specifically waived - it is not necessary to actually state that a work is copyright for it to be so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'positive attitudes towards animals' is the consistent definition.--Youdontownwiki (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To those who say the article does not represent the general usage of the term "animal protection". Do you know anything about public opinion survey? The sources were based on public opinion survey. Or do you mean your personal opinion represents general usage? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as it was previously. WuhWuzDat 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]