Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation


 * 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 keep. John254 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation
The investigation is over, and this article is just a pathetic waste of memory and bandwidth. FOUR WORDS: MERGE TO MICHAEL VICK. --Brokendownferrarienzoferrari (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, no need for this sad episode to have an exclusive article. Rsazevedo msg 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to above user: This article meets all of the qualifications under WP:N, and is a historic moment in animal cruelty. In addition, this is a high profile active criminal ongoing investigation, insofar as Gerald Poindexter and the State of Virginia are concerned. But I am not surprised that such deletion nominations have occurred, as noted for reasons stated below this. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This nomination seems to be bad-faith and pointy as this AfD is the only contribution of BDFEF. There are over 130 sources cited within the article, it was one of the largest and most publicized criminal investigations of 2007 and brought the issue of dogfighting to the forefront within the United States. Merging it to Michael Vick would be virtually impossible with everything listed within the article, and the nominator's claims that this is a 'pathetic waste' are untrue as just about everything is sourced. Also note that Michael Vick wasn't the only figure in this, so to merge it within there would be clumsy. There could be some editing of the article to be sure, but to delete and merge would be too rash. Also, court proceedings are continuing as far as state charges and the NFL's own future reaction, so while the investigation may be over, everything else continues.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.   —  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   —  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Nate says, an extremely well-sourced article on an extremely large and heavily publicized affair. If anything, I would say there's already too much in the Michael Vick article, 5 pages of blow-by-blow details is a excessive for a topic that already has its own separate article. --Stormie (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into something if possible.  This is not wikinews.   We do not need stories documenting every current story out there.   Editors should spend their time documenting current stories at wikinews, not here. Corpx (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Deletion not requested by nom or anyone else. See Help:Merging and moving pages -- RoninBK T C 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, not only is this investigation quite notable in its own right, but the article is so lengthy (a good thing, right?) that merging it would be impossible without removing the vast majority of the content. Everyking (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, for one thing, while the investigation portion may or may not be over, the incident most certainly is not over. The state felony trials in Virginia don't even start for several more months (Vick's is set for April 2; he potentially faces 10 years in state prison in addition to the federal stuff). As far as lumping this in with the Vick article, the federal portions involved 4 defendants other than Michael Vick, and three of those are also state defendants who are also awaiting trials. Once the trials and sentencing are basically completed, it may be appropriate to condense this article quite a bit. If at that time, we do not want it to stand as a separate article, maybe we could merge it into another article such as Dog Fighting in the United States. However, for the benefit of anyone who hasn't been following this for the past 9 months, we started this WP article in the first place because the Michael Vick and Dog Fighting articles were each felt to be too large already. I suspect that the AFD sentiment now is merely an expression of the pro-Vick bias we have been battling all along as we have tried to keep things NPOV. BTW, I am from the Hampton Roads area, and this is certainly no source of local pride, but neither are we (or the local media) ignoring it. At this time, it is an ongoing story. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep but move to just Bad Newz Kennels. There is too much information to shoehorn this into the article on Michael Vick, and Vick, although perhaps the only notable name, isn't the only person involved.  The fact that this once once current news is totally irrelevant; it is a notable event, and notability is not temporary. Torc2 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with talk, there is no way to merge this into the Vick article without losing something significant. As soon as the Investigation is concluded (which I believe it has), change the name accordingly.   This should have never been brought up for speedy deletion.  There has been a rash of these lately on articles that have been around for awhile. Hourick (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - For what it's worth, Brokendownferrarienzoferrari has also nominated Super Bowl XLII for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Super Bowl XLII (now closed). Not assuming bad faith or anything, but wow. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And their user page is just template to another user page, User:Sarranduin. Dunno what's up with that. Torc2 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that the nominator started an obviously speedily kept AfD for Super Bowl XLII last night.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close due to lack of reasoning. Even the nominator does not appear to want this deleted, but merged.  AfD is not the place to hash out merges.  It's called Articles For DELETION for a reason. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per lack of true reasoning for deletion; nom's only other contributions have been an obvious POINTy nomination. If it weren't for all the merge !votes, I'd have closed this myself. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Speedy close: The investigation is NOT over. The federal case may be closed, but the state case is far from closed. The person who nominated the article for deletion made a factual mistake in thinking so, as there are still state charges stemming from this, scheduled to go to trial in spring 2008. In addition, this article will continue to meet Wikipedia's notability standards well after it is over, as this is a historic case in animal cruelty Maybe at that time, a rename should be considered, but NOT UNTIL AFTER the state trials are concluded, but absolutely not a deletion. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to above: In addition, this investigation has FOUR subjects, not ONE. Also, as noted above, since it meets WP:N, it will never lose it.--AEMoreira042281 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2008 (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.