Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commodity status of animals


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Commodity status of animals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created solely to promote animal rights and veganism and to win an argument on the veganism article Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. See Talk:Veganism, Talk:Veganism, and Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive911. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This article was created just as I started an RfC on the veganism article saying that the 'commodity status' was vegan rhetoric and would be ambiguous or meaningless to our readers. The term 'commodity status' when referring to animals is not notable except in vegan or animal rights circles.  This article simply explains the way that animal rights activists use the phrase as rhetoric for promoting their opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As the nominator you are already presumed to be in favor of deletion, unless you state otherwise. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is currently just a stub, but there are lots of academic sources discussing animals as commodities and property, so it can easily be developed. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Clear keep as sources in article amply demonstrate GNG, and observe that this WP:POINTy nomination (with no policy-based deletion rationale) counts against my previously expressed opinion that Martin is making an honest effort to improve articles in this area. FourViolas (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename or merge - the existence of a page should be on its own merits. 'Commodity status of animals' seems like a fancy way of saying 'animal commodification'. The question is whether the term 'Commodity status of animals' widely used and notable. If it is widely/ mainly/ exclusively used by vegans the article can state that.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not "mainly" and certainly not "exclusively" used by vegans. That's the nominator's completely unfounded claim, and is refuted by the article's existing references. This is a frivolous nomination made to prove a point, as the section below illustrates. There is no policy-based deletion rationale here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jonpatterns, please do have a look at the references; the vast majority are clearly animal rights sympathisers. There is no evidence that this terminology is used more generally. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, start with The United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. And then let's please have an inquisition into which academics sympathize with the vegans. You have still not advanced a reason for deletion, or given any indication that this AfD is not just another attempt to forum-shop all these discussions because you didn't like what people were saying about you at AN/I. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While this might be a stub at the moment, the OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health (recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organization (WTO)) certainly views animals as "commodities" - see the first sentence here.  This refutes any arguments it is related only to veganism or other lifestyle choice, and that the article should be kept and expanded upon. DrChrissy (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only time the reference mentions 'status' is in relation to diseases.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is "The OIE is undertaking work to facilitate trade in animal products (commodities) under the auspices of its Specialist Commissions (Scientific Commission, Terrestrial Code Commission, Laboratories Commission and Aquatic Animals Commission)." My interpretation of this sentence is that animals and their products are viewed as having commodity status.  I agree this is not overtly stated in this sentence, but I feel this is a fair interpretation. DrChrissy (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the debate is really over status. It started long, long ago in a faraway place as an objection to calling animals commodities on the grounds that according to Martin they are treated better than inanimate objects. Nevertheless here is an explicitly anti-animal-rights scholarly opinion on the property status of animals, identified by this article as a (near-)synonym:. For the exact phrase "commodity status", see many of the references in the article and also S. Hillyard, The Sociology of Rural Life. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article is currently a stub, the subject clearly meets WP:V and WP:N.  Mini  apolis  23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I expected an original essay to push POV but upon inspection I think we have an encyclopedic topic here. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The article was created purely in response to my observation on the veganism article that the phrase 'commodity status of animals' was vegan or animal rights rhetoric.

The article title itself is not neutral and assumes a particular point of view that has been supported by selected sources. We already have the article Animal rights which discusses the same subject material in a more neutral way. This article is pure promotion of a specific view on animal rights. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that is so, but it also seems to be an established legal concept that meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2016 (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.