Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rat-baiting


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rat-baiting
baitingcruft Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Monkey-baiting Rat-baiting and Human-baiting articles.  SirIsaacBrock 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a good article, on a historical topic of interest to some people, and supplying information that is difficult to find elsewhere. It does seem that Hipocrite has an objection to the sport or the main author, but neither of those is grounds for deletion of the article. Rbraunwa 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the information sources are not listed in the article, it is a violation of WP:V. Do you believe this article complies with WP:V, given that you believe we are the sole source of information regarding this so-called sport? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was impossible to find the information elsewhere, just that I don't think it would be easy. The author of the article has found the information, in the sources he cited. He is making it available in a more accessible location. It seems to me that's a major functon of Wikipedia. Rbraunwa 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * His sources do not support the article. Did you review them? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge reliable parts (if any) into bait (dogs). &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep This is absurd. I can't verify all the information in this article, but it is certainly a notable subject. An entire chapter (nine) of Robert Sullivan's Rats: observations on the history and habitation of the city's most unwanted inhabitants (Bloomsbury, 2004) discusses rat baiting and it's importance as a sport in mid-nineteenth century New York City. –Joke 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Subject obviously warrants an article.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not sure this is a speedy candidate. Same as before, looks reasonable but could use a little cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator has not noted any valid reasons for deletion. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and scold nominator. --Aranae 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep though some rewriting needed MikeHobday 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * +Tags
 * It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 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.