Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics of eating meat


 * 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 but stubbify. Valid points were raised on both sides, but enough information does exist on the subject that an appropriate, encyclopedic article can be written. However, the current "point-counterpoint" article is at present in tone, format, and the amount of original research present unsalvageably far from that hypothetical future one. Hopefully, starting over will allow that article to be produced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethics of eating meat

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Strong keep The article does a good job of presenting a well balanced exposition of a difficult, emotionally loaded subject. The style of the article - arguments for and against, with rebuttals for each - may not be common in WP, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it, and there's no policy (that I'm aware of) that precludes or even expresses disapproval for such an article style. The article does a particularly good job of citing its sources, and the community does a good job of fire-fighting when people's passion gets the better of their editorial rigor. Waitak 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I had to think about this one for a while, and I was trying hard to find something that would nudge this up from being a very well written essay to a properly attributed article - but I can't find it.  Unfortunately it appears to be WP:OR or perhaps WP:SYN but either way it's lacking the kind of sourcing that WP:ATT requires.  Wikipedia is not a source of original thought, and as well-intentioned and well-stated as the thoughts in this article might be, it is just that - original thought.  Rather too bad to see this one go, though, it's well done.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The article is well written, provides the two opposing viewpoints on the issue, and appears to maintain a neutral bias throughout the article. It has to be a keep; as the ethics of meat-eating is a subject worth discussing about. - XX55XX 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unencylopedic point-counterpoint article. All the good stuff here is covered in other articles (vegetarianism, etc.) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is well written, and an interesting read, but seems to be largely original research and, as mentioned, the subject can be better handled on vegetarianism/vegan pages.  The point/counterpoint format also seems inapproriate, though I wouldn't delete on that basis alone.Chunky Rice 22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Largely unsourced and tottaly unencyclopedic point counter-point debate. Many of the citations qualify as sythesis of sources to prove a specific point.  Great example of how wikipedia should not be a battleground. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's a good essay, but the sourcing relies upon summaries of more detailed arguments, and many details are unsupported. I see the POV as balanced.DGG 07:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - per Waitak -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  08:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Too much original research, and too much like a battleground between veggos and omnis. As already said, only about 20% is worthwhile - and this 20% is already covered in other articles on vegetarianism etc. --58.165.47.97 10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm in the process of a major revision to this article, most of it will be deleted. There's enough about the ethics of eating meat to merit a short article. --Calibas 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - It will need to be heavily expanded but I see it having potential; it's certainly the kind of thing that comes up in conversations...question: is it handled at all on the vegan/vegetarian pages? Jakerforever 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is too broad a topic to deal with only on the vegan/vegetarian pages, and not all vegans are so because of ethics. &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - A lotta useful info. --Lhademmor 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Daniel J. Leivick Baristarim 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: even if all the information isn't perfect it gives ideas on the subject to look up elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.146.201 (talk • contribs) 13:59, April 10, 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article contains a good amount of material which should be removed until it can be sourced, but it also contains material which is relevant and attributed to reliable sources. As the deletion policy says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." It specifically mentions Template:Verify, which redirects to Template:Not verified, which is already in place at the top of the article. — Elembis (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * strongly delete the neutrality of the article compromised Gman124 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Elembis. This article should NOT be deleted, but rather should be better sourced.  The ethics if eating meat is a topic which deserves space in the wikipedia, and once properly sourced, much of the material in this article can easily remain.  &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete Keep, but cleanup per Calibas -- Green wood  tree  00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, cleanup While I hate the layout and the ridiculous amount of "Some people say.......however,..." arguments, the subject is notable enough. As a side note, I'd like to remind everyone that POV is not a valid reason for deletion. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Silly (humans need to eat dead animals) but encyclopedic. --Ezeu 00:15, 14 April 2007 (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.