Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trophy hunting


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:CSK, no one actually wants this deleted, and the idea of merging or redirecting can be discussed in an appropriate forum. GRBerry 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trophy hunting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep and Expand - This article has plenty of potential for expansion, which is all that is required for an article to exist at wikipedia. There are 7 articles at wikipedia linked to this page. Article was +tagged for merger with hunting January 3, 2007 and #redirected January 5, 2007 : i.e. inappropriate time for participation. Headphonos 12:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this nominated? --Sigma 7 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I left a message on the nominator's talk page asking him to complete the nomination by giving a reason! SkierRMH 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stop acting childish and read my entry - two animal rights activists #Redirected the article to hunting, this would be the same as a "Rename" nomination, so it should be voted on, wikipedia does not want slanted opinions, even those of animal activists...got it ?! Headphonos 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First off, lay off the personal attacks - clearly two people were curious why an "Article for Deletion" started out with "Keep and Expand"! Normally the nominator is giving reasons for "Deleting" here, not keeping.  Second, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that the change to a redirect was inappropriate, ill timed, and biased.  Third, this appears to be more of the beginning of a content/merge dispute, which I agree should be nipped in the bud (as per walton monarchist89).  SkierRMH 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When discussing redirects, it's traditional to use the talk-page rather than using an AFD. In any case, the redirect request isn't related to a POV, since an unbiased user would see that the Trophy Hunting section on the Hunting page is much more developed (and has been that way for at least a year when compared to Trophy hunting.)  While the trophy hunting page was created first, it seems as the associated contributor to the hunting article was unaware of the subarticle in question and developed the content in the main page instead.
 * Calling people animal rights activists also undermines claims of POV, especially when they write what appears to be reasonable explainations to their claims or edits. Even though the discussion window was shorter than normal (since Trophy hunting wasn't edited that much), redirects will take place if there's no reasonable expectation of opposition. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't redirect - should not be merged with Hunting, as there's enough info already to make this an independent article. More sourcing needed, but I don't even see why this article's being considered for deletion. Walton monarchist89 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect - based on edit histories, the section in Hunting was much more advanced and developed independantly. If the section becomes too large or unwieldly, it will then become suitable for a seperate article. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't feel strongly either way. However, if the trophy hunting article is kept, the text should be deleted and replaced with the text at hunting which is fuller and more neutrally worded. MikeHobday 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as the nominator is advancing a keep opinion thus not nominating for deletion. If the nominator wishes to have a broader audience for the content and merge dispute, please use WP:DR e.g. WP:RFC. --Dhartung | Talk 00:42, 29 January 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.