Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of laboratory animal suppliers in the UK


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of laboratory animal suppliers in the UK
Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. This is almost certainly a method to co-ordinate terrorist activity. Slashme 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so bear with me. You mean like this: Category? So each company would have its own page, with a bit about their history, and they would all be put into a category which would automatically generate a list of them? I hope eventually to write something about the history of the battle between animal rights and laboratory animal breeders in the UK, which has been in the news a lot over the past 10-15 years at least So this would need a page to itself, but then this page could be linked to the Category? So it acheives the same result by different means? Arfan2006 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not a fan of lists in general, but I can't see any reason to single this one out. These are notable companies because what they do is regarded as controversial. They make no attempt to hide themselves, and the claim above that it's a method to coordinate "terrorist" activity makes little sense since anyone involved in opposing these companies will already know about them. The page satisfies the criteria at Lists (stand-alone lists) and there's nothing in the deletion policy that would allow deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What about this list, for example?: List_of_motorcycle_manufacturers. I can't see it's any different other than the addresses not being present. Also, an outside directory will only have current companies and won't have it in its historical context. Would it be better if I removed the addresses from this page? Each company still links to its own individual page which could have these kind of details on. Arfan2006 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. These companies are the subject of noteworthy controversy in the UK, precisely because they supply lab animals. The list is therefore well-specified and related to a serious political subject. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I removed the addresses, but I haven't seen any sign of POV in Arfan's articles (despite the name), let alone incitement to terrorism. This sort of good quality coverage should be encouraged. --Last Malthusian 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article significantly improved since it was put on AfD. Essexmutant 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Article improved but could do with more work. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|25px|UK]] 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Seems like a category is better. -- JJay 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a look into categories and it seems that a category can't have an introduction that ties it all together and explains the context and history behind the category as a whole. Also it requires that each member of the category have its own separate page, and some members may not warrant this, although they would still be noteworthy within the overall page. How is this problem usually handled? By having a standard entry *and* a category entry? Arfan2006 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I've experimented with some categories and you can put an intro but the problem is it requires each item to have their own individual page and that isn't really appropriate e.g. I'd like to list all the Harlan premises that have closed separately, but at the moment they are all listed together on the main Harlan page, as I don't think they warrant their own pages. Arfan2006 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Terrorist activity? Please cite some ways in which a page violates Wikipedia guidelines before bringing something to AfD. Turnstep 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because animal welfare groups have previously been known to attack places like those listed here, I think it is a valid page to be brought to AFD. I don't have an opinion on it, I abstain. Stifle 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally think 'WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors' can be extended to 'WP:NOT censored for the protection of anyone'. An early version of this article included full addresses including street and postcode, which I removed, though the current version includes area/city/county locations. --Last Malthusian 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information is already available without any intro's etc from many websites on the net - this would provide a good list for linking the current Animal Rights related articles to. Claiming it could be used for terrorist activity is like claiming a map could be. -localzuk 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. useful. Kingturtle 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
NO VOTES IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE.

I've changed my vote to a keep as above. Moving this down for reference. Essexmutant 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's simply no purpose to this. Essexmutant 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia guidelines does this article break? I think it is of historical interest given the political climate in the UK over the past decade. There are many pages which have lists of frivolous and trivial things so I can't see why this should be disallowed. Should it be written as an article rather than as a list? I could add it to one of the animal rights pages but I think they are full enough already. Many of the companies mentioned have their own pages - this just ties them all together. I think that the suggestion it be deleted is just due to political bias and an attept to censor information. Arfan2006 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You make some valid points. Perhaps you can expand the introduction somewhat to give it a greater sense of context, and then I will consider changing my vote. Furthermore there are two links that need to be disambiguated. Essexmutant 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Change of vote to weak keep. I would like to see a stronger and more comprehensive argument regarding the notability of the companies regarding their status as suppliers to organisations such has HLS without an animal rights bias. -- (aeropagitica) 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable about this list and I am sure that more comprehensive versions are available in directories available to those organisations who require laboratory animals. WP is not a directory service. If required, the companies could be linked by a category rather than a listings page. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|25px|UK]] 17:17, 6 January 2006 (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.