Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pig slaughter


 * 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. The nominator is now blocked as a sock of a banned user, and the other "delete" opinions are probably addressed by the intervening improvements.  Sandstein  05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pig slaughter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Several reasons for proposed deletion. The page lacks citations and has been tagged for such since 2007 with no attempt to rectify the situation. The article focuses heavily on Croatian pig slaughter rather than a world view of the topic and reads like original research. Additionally, the article spins off into processing (gutting, beheading, and skinning) and butchering which are not slaughter but different topics entirely. Slaughter ends with the animal's death. In industrialized cultures, four footed food animals (cows, sheep, pigs, goats, horses) are typically slaughtered in the same way: the animal is transported from farming facility to slaughterhouse, stunned, hoisted to the rafters, its throat slit, and the blood drained. In undeveloped lands, the animal's throat is slit at home and the beast allowed to die in a wallow of its own blood. Do we really need separate stand alone slaughter articles for each food animal when the methods are essentially the same? Will not one article such as "Animal slaughter" suffice with concise, separate sections for each animal if necessary? While "merge" with "Animal slaughter" might be suggested, I'm reluctant to support because "Pig slaughter" is virtually unsourced and (as I mentioned) reads like OR. I propose deletion of this article and an expansion of "Animal slaughter" to include separate sections on specific food animals with appropriate citations, or simply the industrialized slaughterhouse method versus the homestyle method. NYFernValley (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete nn essay which rambles off topic. Leave redir to Animal slaughter; do not merge. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The slaughter of pigs as a specialist trade goes back to ancient Sumeria. It has distinctive features such as scalding which are particular to the pig.  As the pig is a major type of livestock, the topic has great notability.  For an example of a source detailing this, see here.  Our editing policy is to develop this material not to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Scalding is not slaughter. It's processing and doesn't belong in an article called "Pig slaughter". Neither does butchering, packaging, advertising, selling, or cooking. All food animal slaughter is essentially a "specialist trade" in the industrialized world but this is no reason to expect a separate stand alone article for pigs or every other four footed food animal. The titbit about Sumeria can be accomodated in a separate "Pigs" section in an "Animal slaughter" article. True, pigs are major human food animals (except in Jewish or Islamic societies), but giving pigs a stand alone article means sheep, goats, horses, cows, and other four footed farmed animals such as deer should have their own stand alone slaughter articles when essentially the procedure used for pigs is also used for other four footed food animals: the animal is led to the killing floor, it's stunned, hoisted to the ceiling, its throat slashed, and it's blood drained until the animal is dead. Period. I don't see "Pig slaughter" as it stands an article worth keeping for the reasons above, and I don't see the reason for a dozen stand alone "slaughter" articles about other animals destined for the dinner plates of humans when the same procedure is essentially used for all.
 * Your premise is wrong, the scalding and butchering is all part of the general description of "slaughter" (see slaughter), plus it's explicitly part of the tradition that is widely recognized as "pig slaughter". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The verifiability argument is valid, but you actually have to contest that - either you claim that it's outright unverifiable and unsalvageable, which would warrant deletion, or you don't. The "I don't know, it seems fishy" stance is a poor reason for deletion. But, you're actually missing how the tradition is anything but solely local (Croatian), rather it's spread across continental Europe - notice how numerous editors added the local names from Portugal to Ukraine. If you examine the article history you'll notice how it includes content from an earlier article about pig slaughter in traditional American hog pens, too. In any case, the article already speaks in no uncertain terms about the general agricultural practice of pig slaughter, that section is placed first, and there's nothing apparently wrong with it. You could claim that explaining the tradition in detail puts undue weight on the topic, but that again isn't cause for deletion, instead it can be a reason for splitting the article (as it was once before). The technical distinction between the sole act of slaughter and the other relevant actions it is not important enough to warrant removing the whole context - the slaughter does not happen as a standalone notable act that would warrant its own article, whereas the whole process named after it does. And finally, I think your exceedingly negative opinion about pictures that seem perfectly relevant to pig slaughter betrays a negative bias. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Joy, I don't enjoy being attacked and being accused of a "negative bias" because I removed some questionable pics. Two pics were not germane to the topic but rather to butchering and food preparation, and the other was gruesome. Personally, I loved the pics, I relished them, most of my life has been spent looking at pics of pigs being bled, but Wikipeida doesn't display pics that are inappropriate to the topic, offensive, frightening, gruesome, pornographic, horrific, revolting, or disgusting. Animal slaughter is deliberately conducted in the industrial world behind closed doors and far from the common gaze. Guided tours of slaughterhouses are not conducted for the public. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Let's err on the side of common decency, good taste, and caution. There are external links where the curious can get their fill of pigs being slaughtered. Pics can be sent to Commons and the "Wikipedia Commons has media related to this topic" link placed at the foot of the page. Gruesome pics placed within an article force readers to view them. In the final analysis, I believe this article can be deleted and the "Animal slaughter" article expanded to incorporate any necessary details about pig slaughter. This article is unsourced and has been tagged since 2007. No one has ecpressed any interest in citing sources. Wikipedia is not a how-to so there's no reason to incorporate the Croatian step-by-step into an article whether sources exist or not. NYFernValley (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's be serious. The draining of blood is an integral part of a process commonly known as "pig slaughter". Pig halves are the main product of the same process. The gruesome nature of the pictures literally stems from the gruesome nature of the process itself. The article is improved by having them, you're not really doing anyone a favor by censoring them just because they're ugly. People won't come to the encyclopedia to avoid seeing the actual nature of a topic, they will come to see the facts, and the fact is that this stuff happens. I don't think the claim that this behavior is beyond common decency and good taste is valid, because then the whole practice and the profession of butchers would tend be outlawed, which it most certainly isn't. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's get serious. Draining the animal's blood from a slash to the throat is common to the slaughtering of all food animals and a gruesome photo is not necessary to convey this information. Words are enough. Abortions happen but you're not going to see a photo of a bloody aborted fetus at Wikipedia. One could argue such a photo would be "informative" but it shouldn't be dangled under everyone's nose with a "this is real, this is it, you must look because it's real!" rationale. No one is forced to go into a slaughterhouse to see a pig being slaughtered. However, readers are forced to look at this gruseome photo whether they want to do so or not.  I wonder if the guy in the photo is somebody's uncle and that's the reason the pic is here. I've written rhis business up on the Talk Page. NYFernValley (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue by Colonel Warden (talk).


 * Keep Plenty of valid information for those interested in the subject. A lot of information wouldn't fit in another topic about animal slaughter in general, so needs its own article.  If some of the information is redundant then it can be discussed on the talk page for trimming.  Don't throw out the baby with the bath water .  Google Book search for "pig slaughter" and "religious" shows some results  as does this search when adding in the word "ceremony".  If anyone has access to any of these books, it'd help a lot.  My Credo 250 account is surprisingly worthless.  There are times throughout history where different cultures did pig slaughtering for religious ceremonies though, as evident by the summary results that appear.   D r e a m Focus  01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Valid information"? It's unsourced! Where's the "validity"? Any information in this article should be sourced and then sent to a separate "Pig" section in "Animal slaughter". This is the point I am trying to make: pig slaughter is no different from the slaughter of other four footed animals in the industrialized world and does not merit a stand alone article whether sources are found or not. With trimming and reorganization, "Pig slaughter" can be incorporated into the "Animal slaughter" article. The Croatian/Serbian stuff can be sent to its own stand alone article because it's so specific, so narrow, and creates "undue weight" here and would even do so in a "Pigs" section in "Animal slaughter". BTW, Joy who proposed KEEP above is "from Croatia", according to her user page. NYFernValley (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are sources in the article. I added some myself just now.  If you see anything that you believe needs a source, then tag it .  I created a section for pig slaughtering done for religious reasons.   D r e a m Focus  09:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw it and sent it to Animal sacrifice where it belongs. There's a See slao at the end of this article. Unless there's something unique about the slaughter method itself -- the animal is stabbed in the stomach rather than the throat, for example -- I don't understand why your info should be include here. A link to animal sacrifice is sufficient. NYFernValley (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All the problems described can be fixed by simply altering the existing content or its title. There is zero evidence to suggest that the topic itself is not notable or verifiable. In other words: we never delete articles just because they need cleanup. Steven Walling  01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is zero evidence to suggest that the topic itself is not notable or verifiable. The article is unsourced! Isn't that evidence enough! The article is OR! If this article can sit in the project for FOUR YEARS unsourced then why should ANY article be sourced? But you're missing my point. Pig slaughter in the industrialized world is little different than the slaughter of any other four footed food animal and thus does not merit a stand alone article. A "Food mammal slaughter" article with separate sections for cows, pigs, sheep, deer, etc. is sufficient and so the "Pig slaughter" article can be deleted. NYFernValley (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need a million sources to know that some things are notable. Pig, dog, sheep, cat and all the activities related to them are pretty much obvious. Since the main purpose of domestic pigs is to be eaten, an article about their slaughter, butchery, and all the various cultural traditions thus related is quite obviously necessary. In any case, other editors have already pointed out to you that it's quite easy to find related source material if you just search Google Books. Steven Walling  07:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  07:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The topic is only notable when high quality, reliable sources are entered. It isn't notable because it is something that happens every day. You probably pick your nose every day but this is not notable until high quality, reliable sources are provided. Smithfield slaughters 36,000 pigs a day. A record. But only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) when sources are found and entered. I'm not going prowl about looking for sources for this stuff. There are other things I prefer to do and don't have the time to take this enormous business on. I'm not going to clean some irresponsible editor's mess up. Those who vote KEEP can take this mess on. NYFernValley (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: unsourced WP:CFORK of Animal slaughter and Slaughterhouse. No evidence of any substantive coverage that would not fit into these (or related) articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. NYFernValley (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I attended a traditional-style slaughter of a hog in Mexico when I was a kid. It was akin to the description of traditional methods in this article. The experience was actually quite interesting. I'm of the opinion this is an encyclopedic topic. I feel secure that sources are out there. I also agree that the current rendition emphasizing Croatia reads like original research. I have no opinion as to how to proceed, other than to say that deletion would be a mistake and leaving things unchanged is also not a great option. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't envy you; I understand backyard slaughters are horrific and I'm in no hurry to witness one. One hundred years ago, children ran from the site of slaughter terrified and crying. They jumped into to bed, covered themselves with pillows so they couldn't hear the squeals of the pigs. They would be saddened and terrified for the days and weeks following. You seem to be an exception. Yes, pig slaughter is an encyclopedic topic BUT you're all missing the point. Pig slaughter is little different from the slaughter of other four footed food animals whether the slaughter is accomplished in a high tech slaughterhouse or the backyard. And because there is little difference one main article such as "Animal slaughter" is sufficient, with separate sections for each animal. This is not a broad topic. The pig who has his throat slashed in a Croatian backyard is no different from a pig who has his throat slashed in a Mexican backyard or a lamb, a cow, a goat, a horse that has its throat slashed in dozens of areas around the world. Read my lips: The process is the same and because the process is the same there is no need for umpteenth individual articles scattered across the project detailing exactly the same slaughtering methods! I understand backyard pig slaughter in Croatia has recently been made illegal so I'm not sure we need a detailed description of every slash of the Croatian knife and every guzzle of wine. Do we need to know Croatians drink some sort of wine during the slaughter? Why? And where are you going to find a reliable source for this claim? What does drinking wine have to do with the pig slaughter? I imagine Croatians drink wine at other times. Perhaps a list of "Wine drinking times in Croatia" would be an appropriate article. The Croatian pig slaughter stuff has been around for a long time and was probably written to promote Croatia. It should be cast off as a separate stand alone article with a "references needed" tag at its head. Then we can foget about it. I'm not optimistic that every eingle line in the Croatian description is going to be sourced to a high quality, reliable secondary source. It's obvious the passage is OR. It seems the Ayes have on this discussion so I'm wasting my time here. Have a nice day. NYFernValley (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in junior high. It was a part of daily life. It wasn't terrifying, it was interesting... The process is entirely dissimilar to commercial slaughter methods, which are actually more horrifying, I think. The point is, this is an encyclopedic, sourceable topic, copious sources mentioned above and below in this thread. The current rendition of the article is a mess, admittedly. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it was a common site a hundred years ago, I'm certain most didn't see it as horrific at all. Just part of life.  Your comments suggesting otherwise are just utter nonsense.   D r e a m Focus  22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, whether the subject of an article is horrific or not really doesn't matter in terms of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - a search on WorldCat for pig slaughter yields results that indicate this is a notable topic. Just a few:
 * Microbiological investigations of pig slaughter operations, by Rachel Ann Pearce; University of Ulster
 * Pig slaughter, cutting and curing by Paul Heap; South Australia. Dept. of Agriculture
 * Studies on traditional pig slaughter practices on pork production and quality. by Anish Antony
 * The influence of weighing precision on delivery decisions in slaughter pig production by Erik Jørgensen -- Lady  of  Shalott  17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wonderful. Now go through the article line by line entering citations appropriately. The object is not to mog through Google books looking for sources but to enter citations in the article. Anyone can dredge up sources at Google but there's no one who wants to do the dirty work of entering citations into an article that is someone else's mess. NYFernValley (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While I personally dislike this kind of thing, it appears to be a clearly notable topic. I don't think we should delete articles on notable topics because the present draft is unsourced or unfocused. I found a few more promising sources on Google Books: Qrsdogg (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Great! Now go through the article line by line entering citiations appropriately. Thanks! NYFernValley (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCLEANUP. The AFD is to prove the article's subject is notable enough to have an article.  If you believe the current sources in the article aren't enough, then you can add the rest yourself.  If you sincerely doubt any of the information, then you can tag it with .    D r e a m Focus  20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, a most educational and encyclopedic topic. Appropriate for inclusion, and obviously noteworthy and notable, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The person trying to delete this article has gone through and wiped out a good size chunk of it. . If you want the entire thing deleted, then discuss it in the AFD please, don't go chopping out large chunks of it during that process.  I'm reverting you.   D r e a m Focus  20:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The Croatian stuff now has its own article Croatian and Serbian pig slaughtering, processing, and butchery because the stuff is too local and too narrow for this article. It should go to a "Croatian customs and traditions" section in the Croatia article but the page is locked so I couldn't drop it there. I sent the pig religious sacrifice stuff to Animal sacrifice where it belongs. Unless there's something really special about the way a sacrificial pig is slaughtered (thrown in the fire alive, stabbed in the anus, dropped 100 ft from a temple roof), the stuff doesn't belong here. NYFernValley (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Continue the discussion on the talk page of the article please.  Another editor just reverted you.   D r e a m Focus  21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh, and just as I was having to explain how the pig slaughter article isn't a content fork, I noticed you actually created a separate article that was exactly that - another article about traditional pig slaughter, just with the parts you couldn't verify (or whatever). That's a pretty arbitrary distinction, and I've summarily merged it back. I also integrated the existing external link as a set of inline references, and added another Croatian article that discusses the topic specifically and in detail. I'll see if I can add a few more. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I QUIT. You've spent the day returning unsourced content to the article and reverting all attempts to improve the article in some sort of "contest" to see who is going to come out on top. You win and you can have it. The game isn't worth playing. Your disruptive behavior and foolery confirms what I've long suspected about Wikipedia: the project is very much (not entirely) a congregation of anal personalities. And you have a place in the front pew. Don't bother responding. This is my last contact with Wikipedia. Pat yourself on the back for driving a newbie off the premises. NYFernValley (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My section on pig butchering for religious reasons had a reference for every entry. And you aren't trying to improve the article, you are trying to destroy it entirely, thus the reason you nominated it for deletion.  And three different editors have reverted various things you have removed, including the removal of pictures you seem to be determined to keep out of Wikipedia for invalid reasons mentioned in the talk page discussion.   D r e a m Focus  22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's mourn NYFernValley's 2 day history at wikipedia. See him again soon with whatever name he chooses next time.--Milowent • talkblp-r  23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete I suggest we WP:TNT, since there are too many issues with the page. Tear it down, start again. Besides concerns about WP:CFORK, there is:
 * WP:SCOPE since it seems to focus primarily on Croatia, see:
 * Tradition -- Focusing almost exclusively on Eastern Europe.
 * Country-specific traditions -- Focusing on Serbia and Croatia
 * Problems -- Croatia
 * WP:ORIGINAL, see:
 * Agriculture
 * Traditional Autumn Activity
 * Most of Act of slaughter and the butcher of carcass
 * Processing of Animal parts
 * The smokehouse
 * All of Country-specific traditions
 * Everything under Problems
 * WP:OWN see: Talk page
 * Including some problems with WP:CIVIL, WP:DONTBITE, and WP:GOODFAITH on this AfD.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you believe the article should exist? Saying to "Tear it down, start again" seems odd.  Why not just say it needs a rewrite, and discuss what should be done on the talk page?


 * If it focuses too much on Eastern Europe, then stuff involving other parts of the world can be added as well.


 * What WP:OWN issues? One editor kept trying to remove things, other editors reverted him.  That same editor didn't want certain pictures in the article, three different editors reverted his removal of these pictures, and a 4th editor commented that their reason for removing them wasn't valid.  Rather uncivilized behavior really, going against consensus, and determined to delete things you don't like.  And just look at the rude message he left when he announced he was leaving Wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not personally convinced of the need for the article to fork. However, I've set that objection aside for the purposes of this discussion. I laid out my specific arguments for it being deleted. To quote from WP:TNT, "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. ... Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over." There aren't just a couple of problems with the page that can be edited away quickly. It is a systemic problem throughout the page. Better to just get rid of it and start again.


 * As for the others. The problems with WP:OWN is that you have, more than once, declared that somebody was doing something to "my section". It really is important that you not make it personal. Even if the page is kept, which I very strongly believe should not happen, I would recommend that you personally take a break from the page. Regarding the new editor, it happens. A lot of times, people don't understand how things should work here. You need to be patient with them, explain the rules, and if they are edit warring, report them for that, or file a WP:RfC/U. What you should not do is WP:BITE. Crowing over somebody leaving WP is definitely not something we need.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, WP:TNT is merely an essay someone wrote, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ESSAYDEL Homo Logica (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCLEANUP Qrsdogg (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that applies, since I didn't say that it was messy, so it should be deleted. I cited an essay, and pointed out that cleaning it up would take more effort than deleting it and starting it again. And please, don't try to make this into a WP:POINT. It isn't about WP:WINNING.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I was unclear, I have no desire to make a point or win a competition here. AfD is about discussing relevant applications of policy, and since we've been able to do so I think this discussion has been a success. I'm always very resistant to the idea of deleting articles on notable topics, even if they are in rough shape. I doubt there will be an abrupt change in consensus here, so I'm going to drop the stick now. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I said "my section" only once, and when questioned explained I meant the well sourced new section I added. And I believe I explained things quite well on the talk page.  He was just determined to not have images he didn't like, etc.   D r e a m Focus  04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "My section on pig butchering for religious reasons had a reference for every entry.", "I disagree. Its a good example of pig slaughtering. Also, my religious pig slaughtering section should be here, it not that long, and it certainly not fitting in a general page about animal sacrifices". One here, one on talk, in the space of about an hour. But, as I stated, that's just for my suggestion that you to spend some time away from the page.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah. Don't read too much into something like that.  I never bother proofreading what I wrote.  I should've said "the" instead of "my" perhaps.   D r e a m Focus  04:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, it isn't a huge deal. I just suggested some time away might help a little. :-)
 * Homo Logica (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, that'd be stupid. The article needs work now, so why would you want someone who is actually doing work on it to leave?  As for your edit summary, "Not about winning", that's not what this is about.  Lets stay on topic though.   D r e a m Focus  05:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in two responses. One of them was about that. Mine to you was a gentle reminder. Please stay cool :-) Homo Logica (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. In this case, I don't think that deletion is a good method of fixing flaws with the article. The nomination is somewhat ill-informed: pig slaughter is a notable cultural practice is some parts of the world. It does not end with death of the animal, and involves food processing too, so the title "Pig slaughter" should perhaps not be taken too literally. "In industrialized cultures, four footed food animals (cows, sheep, pigs, goats, horses) are [...]" - yeah, but not all cultures in the world are industrialized, that's exactly the point. Undue focus on some parts of the world could be fixed by forking. GregorB (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is both notable and verifiable and because of religious and cultural requirements is different enough from other animals that it needs a page in its own right.--hydeblake (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems little evidence in the article of "religious and cultural requirements is different enough from other animals that it needs a page in its own" (just a few vague mentions of animal sacrifice of them). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of a source which discusses the cultural aspects of pig slaughter in Slovenia. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right - there is little evidence of it, but that's because it's not a terribly good article. It needs a major overhaul to get it to a satisfactory level, but the topic is one of interest and importance.--hydeblake (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A large part of the problem is that it does comparatively little to carve out a non-overlapping niche for itself. To survive, the article has to demonstrate a significant level of coverage of non-overlapping sub-topics (and may possibly need a rename to emphasise this). This means working out what related articles are already out there, so that effort isn't spent creating further WP:CFORKed material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All I can say is that in my (rather underdeveloped) country, pig slaughter (in Czech: Zabíjačka) is considered an important part of folk culture and tradition. I can't imagine nominating the article for deletion on Czech Wikipedia :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have stated, the objection (my objection, at least), is not to the fact that the topic might be important enough for its own article. It's that at the moment, to clean it up, it would require each section to be re-evaluated and balanced per WP:UNDUE. Then, since it is entirely WP:ORIGINAL, somebody would have to go through and look for sourcing for each statement that is already up. Then, somebody could start actually researching the material for the article. By following WP:TNT, we skip right to the last step. We just research the article.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. Imperfection is not a reason for deletion. 99% of Wikipedia content is imperfect. After reading the article I must admit that I don't find the information harmful. You are right, the article needs work, but not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to point out WP:HARMLESS and WP:VALINFO. The problem isn't that it is imperfect. It's that it is all WP:ORIGINAL. There is, for Wikipedian purposes, nothing on the page. Thus, nothing to salvage, right now.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely off base. Original research is content for which no reliable published source exists. In case of the content myself and others had added to this article regarding Croatian tradition, this is patently false - there are certainly sources for this, but they are not quoted. The article has a problem being verifiable, but it does not have a problem being true. If there was ever a shred of doubt in my mind that any of this was fake off-the-top-of-my-head material, I never would have added it. Obviously that does nothing to fix the verifiability problem, but deletion doesn't fix that, either. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. ... The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below," from WP:ORIGINAL.
 * You're stating that sources exist, and presumably, they were where you gathered the information. However, nobody can WP:VERIFY the statements, since you have not included them, or cited them. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The citation tag, as I stated, has been up for 4 years, without the sources being cited. I have seen numerous editors say, "Sources exist!" However, during this discussion, I have seen the number of sources in the article stay the same. 6 sources. 5 on religious traditions, and 1 on stunning of animals. The very first sentence in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * This is not personal. If there was verifiable material to keep, I'd be the first to say it should stay. The fact is, though, that there isn't. The article, as it stands now, has nothing to keep.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I said my piece above. This is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, copious sources noted above in this thread. The article is a mess and needs massive revision, but it is ultimately correctible through the normal editing process. Keep and fix. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 6 sources in the article. 5 are about religious practices. 1 is a sentence on stunning the pig. The easy solution, since you guys are saying these sources must exist, and it can be easily cleaned up, is to render my argument invalid. Fix it. Otherwise, you're just saying, "it could be done." It has been unsourced for 4 years. This isn't a new article with no sources. This is an article that has been around for 4 years, containing entirely WP:ORIGINAL.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Homo Logica (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I also wanted to mention that there are two big problems with the article, that virtually requires it be deleted. The article is unsourced, but quite lengthy. There isn't a little bit of WP:ORIGINAL that went into it. There is a lot. That means that what would be done (should it be kept), is to attempt to find sources to justify the WP:ORIGINAL. This means that, if it is kept, it cannot be given proper weight. We're looking to justify the content already there, rather than looking for what content actually belongs there. It would be quite disturbing, to me, for us to go that route. The alternative, is the second problem. Suppose we keep the article, and simply remove the WP:ORIGINAL. As I pointed out earlier, that's the entire article. If we keep it, our options are to either 1) lower our standards, and settle on a biased article, or 2) blank the page, which amounts to deleting it, and start again. Once you take out the WP:ORIGINAL, there is NO page. That, alone, should be enough to have people rethinking their position. Most of the arguments on here come down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES.
 * Several people have noticed the availability of sources in this discussion and linked them, so please try reading them rather than blithely assuming that all of the unreferenced information in the article is necessarily false. Certainly more can and should be provided, but that a problem far less serious than what you seem to be describing. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Joy, please refrain from making this personal. I would remind you, that WP:VERIFIABLE is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is not verifiable, so it doesn't belong in here. As for how big the problem is, I would refer you to my complete breakdown of the WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL of the sections, above.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Homo Logica - sorry to disagree (and I certainly don't want to start an argument) but I didn't think Joy was engaging in a personal attack (although there was no need to put blithely assuming) - I read it in a slightly different way than you, I think. Either way Joy is right to point out that much of the unsourced material is true, but you are, of course, right to point out that verifiability is one of the major cornerstones of Wiki. This article as it stands is not very good and needs a major overhaul at the very least, but I still think that it should remain, as long as someone is prepared to do some fairly heavy work on it.--hydeblake (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think our stances are on that far off, here. The blithely assuming was the only part I really objected to. Just wanted to make sure it didn't go further (such as the personal that I removed). My suggestion wasn't specifically to just get rid of it and be done. My suggestion has always been WP:TNT, since the work required in the major overhaul would exceed the work required to just start from the beginning. It comes down to much the same thing, for an article in this bad of shape.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason why you might see this as too personal is perhaps your particular peculiar interpretation of WP:V - to determine whether something is verifiable or unverifiable, someone actually has to challenge it, or it has to be likely that someone will challenge it. Yes, the burden of proof that something is true is on the person who adds material, not the person who challenges it. Challenging parts of this article is the easy part, someone just has to strike offending parts. Or demonstrate how easy it would be to challenge those parts. But other than the very generic arguments seen in this discussion, nobody has actually done much of that in any really meaningful way, AFAICT. Even NYFernValley's misguided content fork didn't actually mean that he was challenging the veracity of those statements - if he wanted to do that, he could have either outright deleted them or tagged them with inline citation-needed tags. This discussion has been excessively theoretical in nature. Hopefully we can get past all this silliness as more references are added, eliminating this whole uncertainty about things being improper. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This AfD is quite peculiar. There's no question that the topic is notable, or that the article can stand improvement.  Homo Logica, you are making arguments that are not persuasive, though you are well-versed in citing a blizzard of policies despite having only 250 edit under your belt.  And NYFernValley was a brand new editor starting an AfD.  AGF as to all, but its peculiar.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the issue, and not the editor. Your comment has not addressed the very specific concern that the effort required in fixing the article is greater than that required to start from the beginning.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to prepare a revised article in userspace for discussion purposes? I would be happy to review.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand. I'm not proposing a revised article. I'm proposing that this one be deleted. Homo Logica (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But you agree that Wikipedia should have an article on pig slaughter, correct? Why should you not propose revising it?  You seem like a knowledgeable person, and we need logical knowledgeable people working on articles, even when they may not be in their area of expertise.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe, that for the purposes of this discussion, whether it should have been forked can be placed on the backburner. I have stated repeatedly that fixing the article, as it is now, requires more effort that starting a new one. I'm pointing out that WP:TNT is the best route, in those circumstances.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are aware it could be stubbed and then rebuilt, right? Lady  of  Shalott  00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true. And I'd be okay with just clearing off all the unsourced material. The problem is that it just leaves us with the Czech Republic and Religious Practices. The article would then not be about Pig Slaughter in general. That said, I'd still be okay with it, since it amounts to much the same thing.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT? An essay never used, never cited, and started by infamous mega-banned editor A Man in Black?  LOL.  You even write the same as he.  Anyway, everything Homo Logica said shows that the topic is notable and the article should be improved, not deleted.  You clearly have time on your hands, so get to work or go home.--Milowent • talkblp-r  01:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Citing WP:TNT repeatedly through this AFD is ridiculous. The essay goes against the long established Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPERFECT, which is why I nominated it for deletion.  Follow policy, as it is the law, while essays are meaningless.   D r e a m Focus  19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will repeat that WP:TNT describes my suggestion, and not a policy I'm using to justify anything. Just to be clear. These are the policies, guidelines, and essays I have cited, as reasoning for my position, as well as responding to concerns about my position.
 * Guideline/Policy - WP:ORIGINAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN
 * Essay - WP:SCOPE, WP:HARMLESS, WP:VALINFO, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:TNT
 * Other - WP:ESSAYDEL
 * WP:IMPERFECT does not apply to that suggestion, as has been pointed out in the MfD, and in the previous MfD. I will point out, again, per WP:ESSAYDEL, that Essays are not meaningless.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a ✅ sock puppet of banned user. –MuZemike 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So? I don't have a problem working with a sock who acts civilly and in this instance I see no reason to take alarm. Apparently this sock incurred the wrath of Wikipedia after getting into an argument with an editor who has "clout" -- all of three years ago, for crying out loud! In the meantime the sock has created dozens upon dozens of GA articles for Wikipedia and 1 FA. I think dogging this editor has been taken far enough. What are you -- the relentless avenging angel? Take a break. I'm grateful the sock brought this article to my attention. Other than screaming "Sock!" like an hysterial high school kid, do you have anything significant to contribute to the discussion?  GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The title suggests a global view but the article focuses on Eastern Europe. A world view may be impractical: Pig slaughter in ... Denmark, England, Norway, Brazil, Venezula, China, Japan, United States, Canada, France, Spain, blahblahblah. Perhaps the article should be retitled "Pig slaughter in Eastern Europe". Whatever, the title as it is at present is misleading. Also, this is an English language encyclopedia and sources for the Eastern Europe info are in non-English languages, making it difficult if not impossible for English language editors to verify the quality or the reliability of the sources. The "Sacrifice" section is borderline. The ancient Greeks set aside a small portion of a sacrificed pig for the gods while the rest of the animal was consumed by the people. I'm not informed on the other cultures. On the whole, I sense that the focus on Eastern Europe is the product of some disgruntled people who see their traditions being cut short by EU regulations. The Croatian pig customs can be entered into the "Croatian culture" article and the Serbian, Czech, and Slovakian info can be entered in similar articles. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet of nominator. - file lake  shoe  01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the sources are in English or not, is not relevant. There is a policy about that somewhere, I just don't recall where.  If your only complaint is the name of the article, then discuss it on the talk page.  And the ancient Greeks sometimes sacrificed entire pigs, casting them into chasms so nothing could get to them.  That doesn't matter though.  Pigs were slaughtered at times for religious reasons, I listing four quick examples for that.   D r e a m Focus  20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Welcome to the deletion discussion for Pig slaughter. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive." GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GlasgowGuyScotland, welcome to the wonderful world of AfD, thanks for participating in your first discussion. However, your !vote doesn't state a valid basis for deletion of the article, however, you seem knowledgeable on the subject so perhaps you could improve the article.--Milowent • talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly could improve this article. "Backyard" Eastern European pig slaughter is no different from "backyard" pig slaughter anywhere else in the world. What happens is the same: the pig's throat is cut and the animal is bled to death. It was mentioned elsewhere in this discussion or the article's Talk page that the article should focus on modern slaughterhouse methods with a mention of "backyard" methods. This seems to me the way to go. For me, all the material about Eastern Europe is nonessential to an understanding of pig slaughter and should be moved to "Croatain culture" and similar articles. There is no reason to single out Eastern Europe in an article about an event that is universal. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can add in other nations as information is found. Nowhere does it say we'll only cover one group.  Notable examples should be listed in an article.   D r e a m Focus  20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason Eastern Europe nor any other land be singled out in this article. If Wikipedia must have such as article (and it is moot whether this is so) then the article should focus on the methods of modern slaughterhouses in the First World rather than the backyard methods of the Second or Third World. All the Croatian bits should be moved to "Croatian Culture" and the other Eastern European bits to similar articles because they are all essentially saying the same thing: the pig's throat is cut and the animal bleeds to death, the slaughter begins in the fall, pigs are slaughtered at Mardi Gras time, etc. There's so much duplication from section to section making this article redundant and unreadable. I cannot understand why the bit about girls collecting bones for their wedding day is essentrial to our understanding of pig slaughter. The bit belongs in an "Eastern European wedding superstitions" article. Additionally, I challenge the numerous references which an English speaking, writing, and reading lad cannot decipher. It is impossible for me to ascertain whether these sources are high quality or reliable. This is an English language encyclopedia and editors and readers are not expected to read Croatian or Czech. It's obvious some Eastern Europeans have "glommed on" to this article to "push" Eastern Europe as a vacation destination for English as a First Language peoples and to "vent" against the EU in a political statement of some sort. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is about the most insane AfD I have ever seen, and the nominator has withdrawn their support anyway. By all means add details of slaughterhouses, backyard ritual slaughter outside of Eastern Europe, but speaking from personal experience, I had never heard about this until I moved to Czech Republic. - file lake  shoe  00:50, 27 May 2011 (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.