Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 05:34, 4 July 2010 (Close as delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, with no objection to a redirect to Animal ethics or Animal welfare. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal protection

Animal protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(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]
You're twisting the meaning of Wikipedia:No original research. It is certainly bad practice to base articles entirely on primary research studies, and doing so does nothing to show the notability of the topic, but it is not "original research" to do so in Wikipedia parlance. And primary research articles are often reliable sources. The real reason to not have this article is that it is a content fork of Animal rights and Animal welfare. We should redirect to one or the other of those articles. Fences&Windows 13:45, 27 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]

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]
Redirecting to Animal ethics, a DAB page, would also be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 30 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 initiated 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]

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]

The article has been redirected to animal welfare and animal rights in the past. So which article to redirect to? Also people in this page have apparently disagreement with redirection, one say direct to animal welfare, one say direct to animal rights. This is getitng really interesting.--Youdontownwiki (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal has a definition in dictionary, protection has a definition in dictionary, animal protection together definitely have a general agreed meaning at certain level. As I put previously, it is 'positive attitudes towards animals' the protection of animals. Animal ethics focus on ethics, the study of what is morally right and what is not. Animal protection is about the act of protecting or state of being protected (pls see Cambridge dictionary online). There are difference of both. Also if its going to only have a disambiguation page, where the information about the differences of the definition in different nations should go?--60.242.6.177 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also searched animal rights and animal protection in google book, it returns many results too[[4]] however this method is not scientific because people in many parts of the world use other languages for their literature for example they would use proteccion de los animales which above methods can not covered. --Youdontownwiki (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find anything in the reliable source page you provided suggests supporting certain opinion would undermine the source reliability, please point out specific line and paragraph that is relevant. Many wrote articles for wiki before, supporting some authors opinions. There were many types of reliable source, university publication, dissertations, conference publication and journals. The article cited all type of references. There are many other people consider animal protection is a collection of different attitudes, please read reference carefully, in particular those added later. Please focus on the latest version of the article as I am improving it. The article may not be perfect but it does not mean it should be destroyed. Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animal ethics or Animal welfare. I'm not convinced that there is any significant difference in terminology within English-speaking countries and this is the English language Wiki. All the references asserting that there is a difference appears to circle back to one researcher. If the point needs to be made that some believe "animal welfare" and "animal protection" are entirely different concepts, then it can be made with a cited reference in Animal welfare provided that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. Location (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reference 4 and 6 were published before the other references, they are not related!you removed the top notice, but did you read carefully? Which means we need the notice. Even in English world, there is disagreement of which term it should redirect to, animal welfare or animal rights. before my editing the article has been redirected to animal rights for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one more independent reference, number 7, this one is from a US organization HSUS, the previous one, reference 6 was from a UK based international organization. They both use animal protection for more than just animal welfare or animal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: 60.242.6.177, Youdontownwiki, and Thisisaniceusername are all the same editor (used serially, with one blocked, so I'm not suggesting SP - just want to make sure they're not seen as three !votes) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article has been changed a lot, the debate should be relisted because many vote were based on earlier versions.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unethical debate I also ask attentions for Boing! said Zebede's attempt of defaming me in the debate by misleading other voters that my constructive editing are spamming. It would have misleaded the opinions of other voters. Detail can be found in my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect It's a difficult area to avoid PoV in, but as this seems to be based on one person's definition it must be promotional of that one viewpoint. This may or may not be the desire of the article's creator, but as it stands it would (to my mind) require a complete rewrite to avoid this problem. I would ask the creator of the article to calm down a bit and accept that the experienced editors here do know at least something about how Wikipedia works and what the rules, guidelines and procedures are. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • its not one person's position, I have to say this again, many times, see references, why people dont read and assume they know about things?experiencing in editing does not equal to expert in the area of the particular article. professional editors would know to respect the academic expertee of the author and aware they are not familiar with technique details on the particular issue. All people voted against keeping the article so far fail to provide 'reliable secondary sources' to support the decision: which reliable source suggest animal protection is only the same thing of animal welfare? or something else? All they said is their own personal opinion. This is totally against Wikipedia principle. NO RELIABLE SOURCE PROVIDED.

Also I just did Google translation search, 'animal protection' 'animal rights' together return much more results than 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'. Which perhaps suggests if look at the whole world, animal protection is more associated with animal rights than animal welfare. Please verify this by yourself.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+rights'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 2,250,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal rights'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+welfare'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 1,580,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'

Redirect this page to any of the page would be biased, overall information in this page show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 1. if this article/title does get redirected, there can be a section at the target page which explains the extent to which "Animal protection" differentiates from "Animal welfare" (to use one potential target page as an example), using Reliable Sources, of course. 2. The person(s) editing the article should read WP:Conflict of Interest, just in case it applies to them. First Light (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another issue is the copy-and-paste of the table of nations from http://jmeng.goodeasy.info/DefinitionAnimalProtectionVegetarianism/index.php which appears to be in breach of Wikipedia's rules on copyright material. This is rather more than just a brief quote. So far as I can see, there is only one of the accessible references that doesn't mention J., Jia or Jenia Meng. The one is the World Animal Net site, which does refer to 'animal protection' but not Meng as far as I went into it. Otherwise, the article seems overwhelmingly J. Meng based - and one particular book into the bargain. I'm not suggesting spam, but I don't feel that WP:NPOV and WP:COI are being followed here. Has no-one else made use of the term 'animal protection'? If they have, where are they? Peridon (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed the list of countries as a clear copyright violation. First Light (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Begging pardon - missed out the Humane Society which also mentions 'animal protection' but seemingly not Meng. This still leaves a great amount of emphasis on the one publication. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed another one Bostock, Stephen S.T.C. (2007). Looking at 'protectionism'. Society & Animals, 15(2), 203, so 3 other sources at least, how many Wikipedia article has less than 3 reliable, independent sources like this? Are they all going to be removed or merged? Otherwise its unfair editing.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would then make it a reasonable short subsection at the target article, explaining the minor distinction between usages. First Light (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copy right violation, there is text on the page say 'Information on this webpage is in the public domain' and no copy rights were declared.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a self-published source (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) and therefore not acceptable to be used on Wikipedia. Do please read all of the relevant Wikipedia policies that apply to this article. I think you would find it helpful for understanding why this article will probably be redirected. They would include: WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:Your first article, WP:COI, WP:GNG, and more. First Light (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its based on reliable source No, the information in the section you removede is not from a self published source, it was original from the dissertation 'origins of attitudes towards animals', published by university of Queensland, page numbers were provided and everything in the section can be verified. University dissertation are considered as reliable source of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you proved citations from other academics that would show this particular dissertation, and its definition of "Animal protection", is notable in the field, and more than just the views of that one author? Do you have a conflict of interest with the author (i.e., are you the author or have a "close personal involvement with the subject" per WP:COI)? First Light (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not a conflict of interest that is defined by wikipedia in WP:COI. for the citation please see reference 5.

And now can you please provide your reliable reference for any decision of redirection? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion or redirection discussion is about the best application of Wikipedia policy to a particular article. There is no such thing as a 'reliable source for redirection'. Please see WP:AfD. My own opinion on redirection of this article hasn't changed. Because this discussion has at least another 5-6 days to go before there is a decision, I'll let other editors chime in, and I'll check back in a few days. Best of luck. First Light (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and input :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the decision of redirect has to be based on object reliable sources other than personal opinions. This is for the interest of wikipedia being a neutral source of information.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It it actually up to the creator of the article to provide sources for the article that show it is up to Wikipedia's standards. Believe me, we do know what we're talking about. We do this often. We're happy for the article to survive - so long as it meets the requirements. Opinion at the moment seems to be that it doesn't. Instead of repeating the same things all the time, how about you finding some more stuff that will make it fit. As I said, it's really up to you. Sometimes you might find a regular who will help. I do, quite often, when I think there is a case for survival and the creator is willing to listen. Peridon (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am always listening, I have already add editors comments in the article, I have been improve the article up to the time of your post, I didn't miss 3 references when I read other peoples article . All these can be verified in the editing history. Now pls provide wikipedia official document show statement above is not your personal opinion. Please provide document support following opinions implied by your above post
1)'articles does not meet quality standard need to be deleted'. why I see so many article with a notice of improve without being deleted?
2)'its the creators solo responsibility not the whole wikipedia community's responsiblity to improve the article to required standard'. what I read in wikipedia policy was disagreement in content can usually be amended by editing without resort to delete.
3)also please specify which wikipedia quality standard the current article does not meet. (other than those personal opinons of editors I added)? please quote original wikipedia policy when you do this. I am very happy to make any change according to wikipedia's policy.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please read and comment reference 5,6,7. yes you are right, animal protection is a umbrella term, but it does not only used by animal rights and animal welfare people, other people also used it such as conservation people and people concern about genetic modification of animals. btw, the author of reference 5 is the chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) He also wrote review for Rain Without Thunder of Gary L Francione, see here http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/rain-without-thunder-the-ideology-of-the-animal-rights-movement/ I look forward to your response.[reply]
  • Some wikipedia policies related For the interest of wikipedia, please review related wikipedia policy.

This article animal protection was a redirect page before editing, so this applys 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion'

Global perspective is part of quality standard of wikipedia. 'Global view Except in content with a local focus or where specific localized grammar or spelling is appropriate, or when an established precedent has been established and no clear reason has been accepted by a consensus to overturn it, content should be presented from a global view without bias towards any particular culture or group.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

'Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Wikihounding

'Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_blanking 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has published any of your personal information, and the "requested a change in username" clause is not applicable, as you did not request a change in username - you had a username blocked for being unsuitable. Also note that "change of username" policy can not be used as a reason for hiding the fact that a single editor has taken part in one discussion using three different IDs. Nobody is suggesting you did anything improper in that, but it is an important fact that is pertinent to the closing admin counting up how many people have commented on whatever side. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some consider the information in the current article is not balanced, so this applys 'Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight. If one consider its not balanced then reliable source need to be provided for the opposite opinions. Because of the comments of some editors here (I am always willing to listen different opinions), I have added the opposite opinions of some editors. but honestly I can not find reliable source to support those opinions at this moment. Restrictively speaking those opinions (such as animal protection equals to animal welfare) should be removed. Please find reliable source and prove current article is not neutral. --Thisisaniceusername (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My ending comments this debate as a AFD debate is already conclusive. majority does not agree delete. please note redirect mean 'keep' but change content, there is no such a thing delete and redirect in wikipedia's definition. What should apply to this article is a RFD, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redirects_for_discussion

When you consider a redirect is needed, please dont only say 'redirect', please also say which page as target of the redirect and why choose this(using reliable source). you need to convince others the page should not be redirect to the page they choose. otherwise the debate don't do anything, we still dont know where the page is going to. Currently, there is roughly equal amount vote to animal welfare, animal rights and animal ethics. no really much consensus so far.

So I consider keep the article still be the best choice for wikipedia under this situation (why the afd statistic put me into redirect group?). 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.' This is the most related wikipedia policy on this issue. ( please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion' )

  • Comment. I see the original author has added some new sections taken from other Wikipedia articles, under the "Different Types of Animal Protection" section. However, I don't think that changes the fact that the basis of the article is little more than one specific piece of original research that concluded little more than that the common generic phrase "Animal protection" appears to be understood slightly differently by different people in different places - there are few generic phrases that would be understood exactly the same way by everyone, especially when there is no single formal definition. I also think that none of the recent additions is enough to justify the apparent claim that the phrase "Animal protection" is a widely-accepted umbrella term for the specific other phrases discussed in the article, nor that the other phrases represent "Different Types of Animal Protection" - if anything, they're all just generic phrases with different degrees of overlap, with none of them representing a "parent" concept to which the others belong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After a great deal of (mostly one-sided) discussion, I still haven't seen anything to convince me that this article should not be deleted. The proper target for a redirect seems to be the only issue left. I would still prefer to see it redirected to another article, such as Animal welfare, Animal rights, etc., but any of the targets mentioned by the redirect !voters would suffice, including the Animal ethics disambiguation page. First Light (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_protection&oldid=371657493"