Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Defense 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. John254 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In Defense of Animals

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Refer to article's talk page. This article has not had sources cited for a long time. The article is not encyclopedic, and may contain significant bias. Jpj681 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep whilst it lacks citations in current form, it meets WP:ORG. significant third party coverage as revealed in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does have third-party coverage, but it's been an unreferenced, unsubstantiated article for over a year. If kept, it should be dramatically edited. It is barely a stub.Jpj681 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

going to make the article into a stub. Jpj681 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

the article is being fleshed out during AfD. some conflicts may exist with citations that are directly replicated from the IDA website, but i dont think the article needs deleted at this point.Jpj681 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now added 11 citations and tidied up a fair bit. If you wish you can withdraw your nomination but that's your call. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-known animal advocacy group. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

very well done, too. :P wont withdrawal; I'll let it go through the process. there are some reference issues,i think. but definitely glad for your efforts. peaceJpj681 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've now added a number of reliable references which seems to prove this group's activism is well documented. I think it now passes WP:ORG. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

wonderful. this article languished for quite a while. great job. 'nother win for WP Jpj681 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * AfD isn't the way to achieve it though, Jpj. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

well, slim, that's what I thought as well...check out the article's talk page. i bent under peer pressure. :P (and i think that even a noble institution's entries should meet the Standard.  that article's statements went completely unchallenged for over a year. and now they won't:P)Jpj681 (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, and I do see your point, but you could have added some references yourself. It's a well-known group and sources are easy to find, after all. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

well-known to whom? i'd never heard of it until I Random Articled it. and I'm not even directly interested in the topic. but people that have heard of the org, have probably come to its WP article, have possibly cited it elsewhere on the web, didn't do anything to improve its credibility? way worse than the dramatic step of AfD, imo. ask Rockpocket :O I'm not interested in the subject. just the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpj681 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article looks fine to me. Plenty of sources now. JulesH (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah it's fine now. Jpj681 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, well-referenced article on notable topic. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- glad it's been improved but I would've favored keeping even the version that was nominated. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 17 December 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.