Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal rights and the Holocaust


 * 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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, keepers are unanimous. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights and the Holocaust
I think this hits the trifecta of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NNOT. I acknowledge that this was a mistaken nomination, and suggest a speedy keep Dybryd 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you had waited more than 29 minutes before nominating it for deletion, you would have seen that, in fact, the article is already well-sourced and is far from being original research. There is a significant body of literature on the comparison, which the article aims to explore. I'm unclear why you think NOT is applicable, or why you think it's not NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you're right, I was just zipping along doing stubs and didn't really check how the page had changed. Sorry--at least on AFD lots of people will notice your brand new article, eh? Dybryd 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a well known and often used debate tactic for animal-rights supporters. will381796 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy Keep per nominator's withdraw of nomination. well sourced encyclopaedic article. I'm not sure we can ask for more.  If a number of people have a stupid opinion, but it's enough that it passes WP:V, then it ought to have an article. WilyD 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is already pretty good. And if even if it wasn't, why don't we give it more than mere minutes before we start AfD'ing. I'm also not sure I see any concrete arguments against this article, merely boilerplate WP policy refs. IronDuke  20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to catch bad articles is to read over the newest articles - that's why many AfD are on articles that are minutes or hours old - and they're usually worth deleting. We all make mistakes. WilyD 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wily, I think when someone sees that an established editor has created a stub, it's best to wait more than a few minutes in order to give it a chance to grow. If it's an anon, fair enough, but if it's a known editor, a tiny bit of good faith should be shown. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged it was a mistake on the part of the nominator.  I was just trying to explain to the inquiring mind what had happened.  WilyD 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible we all make mistakes but this was the state of the article when it was put up for AfD. It is well sourced. Given the quality of the article the least one could do is be specific about which parts are viewed to fail WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NNOT. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't WP:OR, doesn't violate WP:NPOV, and, in my opinion, seems to be a noteworthy subject.  Srose   (talk)  20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be well sourced and valid article. May be the nominator could clarify exactly where they seem the problem in this article. it is not inherently obvious. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic topic, well written, well sourced - quite remarkable given its brief existence. The nomination was a bit hasty. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There's a lot of controversy surrounding the subject and so there will be a great deal of sources. Jacqui ★ 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Slim and I discussed its creation, even though she and I are (or thought we were!) at opposite sides on this issue. Anyway, this is a typical example of a thoughtless nomination that accuses a spin-off article of being a WP:POV fork.
 * We need to modify the VFD requirements. People should have to give detailed reasons. Showing examples of how an article violates NPOV, if that's the policy cited. The burden of proof should be on the nominator, and it should should not be settled by voting. --Uncle Ed 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure all it shows is that I'm an idiot. An appropriate consensus was quickly reached, and voting would be open to way more abuse than this system. Dybryd 22:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dybryd, you are not an idiot. You were perhaps hasty, that's all, though acting in good faith. Next time, maybe you could consider clicking on the user page of the page creator. If it's someone's third edit, that's not a good sign. If it's their 40,000th, it's a better sign. But no harm done. IronDuke  22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's only their third edit, you know they're still sane. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.