Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical animal studies


 * 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. Deryck C. 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical animal studies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is sweeping with unverifiable claims, appears obviously self-promotional, and with nonobjective authorship Liborgone (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that Critical Animal Studies has a journal and organization associated with it that has received very minor mentions in legitimate publications including the N.Y.T. and Chronicle of Higher Education. The ultimate issue with this listing may not be one of meeting general critieria of notability, but rather that the page is not based in what actually makes this topic notable, making smaller verifiable citations from reliable sources not connected immediately to the topic. The article reads like a promotional piece for the Institute of Critical Animal Studies, with links pointing there (some dead) to support its claims. If this were a minor issue, I would support calling for editing only. But the page is so sweeping in not addressing what is notable about the term or field, and providing legitimate citations on behalf of the same, that I think the best thing to do is to delete and oversee a re-writing of the page based in the objective citations to the term or field. Liborgone (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liborgone (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Searching for this is a bear, what with the similarly named institute and journal, which may in fact all be related. In any case all searches on these things turn up no serious sign of notability, and the articles sources are all in-house to the degree they are provided at all. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that this web page could be (greatly) improved. I am unclear why the move is not towards improving the webpage instead of deleting it. Critical Animal Studies has a peer-reviewed academic journal, a book series from a major academic publisher and (as Liborgone points,) has been mentioned in both the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Clearly this meets whatever litmus test we might come up with for keeping a topic on Wikipedia. Why don't we simply shift the conversation into how to improve the entry instead of trying to delete it? I think that would could be a very helpful and productive conversation and helpful to Wikipedia as a whole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.4.123 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it clearly meets whatever litmus test might be come up with. There are millions of references to things that receive a very minor mention in notable publications, but that doesn't mean that the minor mentions are therefore notable. The mentions in the NYT and Chronicle of Higher Education (as I remember them) are quite minor in my opinion.


 * I'm not sure what press the unsigned commenter refers to above, but searching google I see on the Institute of Critical Animal Studies that they have a series with the publisher Rodopi. Here I would make two points: first, in the spirit of improving the listing if that is the ultimate decision, this is another case of the Wikipedia entry being ambiguous -- is it about Critical Animal Studies or about the Institute for Critical Animal Studies? The latter has a book series apparently, the former does not. Second, I would have to seriously disagree with the previous commenter that Rodopi (if this is what is being referred to) is "a major academic publisher." To be fair, they are a long-time independent publisher of academic titles, mainly for Europe. They are not a vanity press, but in terms of reputation they are closer to being vanity than a major academic publisher, which would generally be university presses. I don't want to imply the book series is inconsequential, though. But it does not have a notable history yet. Checking the Rodopi website it appears that the series has only one book published that is listed as "New" and for which I could find no reviews -- notable or otherwise.Liborgone (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Repurpose as an article about the Society, describing what it's viewpoint is, briefly and non-progandistically. It'll be easier to do it that way than to write a NPOV article about the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made some edits to this article in attempt to address some of the issues raised here. One being to distinguish the feild of Critical Animal Studies as something seperate from the Institute. The page is intended to be about the feild. More work may need to be done, but my thoughts are to clean it up rather than delete. SaratColling —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC).  — SaratColling (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:COI for reasons that you, as someone apparently associated with criticalanimalstudies.org and a few other direct connections, should not participate in deletion discussions where you have a conflict of interest. JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – I've taken my time looking into this and have come to the same conclusions as Mango, above. Essentially, it doesn't meet WP:BASIC or what I could interpret from WP:ACADEMIC as it might to pertain to fields of study. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 12 February 2012 (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.