Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection: Difference between revisions

Animal protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: This seems to be a single-purpose advocacy/opinion article, and is pretty much just a copy of [1]. There's no way to objectively validate its list of "nations and their components of animal protection (listed in descending order of relevance, the left most component is the most relevent)" - it just seems to be a single author's opinions from a piece of original research. Actually, to delete the current new version of the article, it should presumably be reverted to the 2008 redirect version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted. The issue addressed in the article is reported by two peer reviewed work with multiple authors. Both original work can be accessed online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed work is still a primary source and thus represents original research and a specific point of view. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) to determine notability and to enable an article to be written from a neutral point of view. You can't just state the conclusions of original research as if they were fact, and you can't use original research to redefine a commonly-used term. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sources and reference 1, 2, 3 of the article are secondary source of reference 4, reference 5 are secondary source of reference 1,3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect as POV fork, either to animal rights or animal welfare. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect as at Sep 2008 was to Animal rights -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

animal protection does not equal to animal welfare or animal rights, please see references 1 to 4 of the article. Therefore it should not be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible Keep The expression seems to be notable enough from the sources. The article should be rewritten so that it is explained. The list of countries should go. You would not have a list of people ranked by intelligence in the article on Intelligence, for instance. Borock (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection", and no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition. I really don't see how an article here promoting one particular definition can be seen as anything but POV-pushing. There may be a notable movement in favour of some form of definition, but unless there is widely accepted definition (in the wider word, not just amongst "animal protection" people), then I don't think this particular POV should be allowed to usurp a common term here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good information provided 1) 'There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection"', yes, therefore its an important term and should has a page on Wikipedia, therefore should not be deleted. 2)'no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition', agree. Therefore redirect it to animal welfare or animal rights are also not universally accepted. As references shows, there are people disagree with it. Therefore the proposed redirection should also not be a solution for Wikipedia. The information provided in the argument shows, people should edit and improve the article instead of delete it or redirect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the information about the nations should go, then where to put them? In a separate article? It might be too short, wikipedia have articles about people's IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information about the nations shouldn't be anywhere, because it is primary-sourced original research and personal opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the study methods, it was based on statistic analysis of opinions of over 4000 people in euroasia. If this is 'personal' opinion, then can someone provide more reliable source (not 'personal') to support the redirection (animal protection equals to animal rights)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, source can support the redirection should also be provided to show its not a 'personal opnion' and 'primary research'.

• Delete and redirect to Animal welfare. Animal protection, per the sources, is distinct from Animal rights, but it really is just an alternative wording for animal welfare, another, less standard, way of saying the same thing. The arguments to keep on the basis of numbers of Google hits fail to reflect that reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable source to support that animal protection 'is just an alternative wording for animal welfare'. It has to be reliable source and not personal opinions and primary research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection can mean animal welfare, animal rights, wildlife conservation, respect animals in different context and different parts of the world. Most notably, in many nations, wildlife protection is a major part of animal protection. keeping animal in the zoo is against the idea of animal protection (protección de los animales). In fact its a collection of all these attitudes. Sources for the statement in this paragraph was in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]