Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel and animal rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No Consensus. Paul Cyr 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and animal rights

Delete (changed to Move/Merge see my comment further down) Insufficient material to justify an article. The few paragraphs seems to be culled from a single work. POV, whether or not Israel is "one of the most progressive nations in the world when it comes to animal rights" is an entirely subjective statement dependant on whether or not one views kosher/halal slaughter as more or less humane than other pratices. It's not clear cut (no pun intended). And the bit about whaling is just odd - Isreal's never had a whaling industry is likely because there are no whales around. That it's government voted for a ban on whaling is not especially meaningful. Homey 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, since the article could theoretically be de-POV'd and possibly prove useful (in much the same way as we have articles on human rights in different countries, animal rights could make an worthwhile collection of articles). BigHaz 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps at one point, right now this would make more sense (if rewritten) as an entry in some sort of article cataloguing animal rights around the worldHomey 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
That was my point. One could either rewrite this to remove any POV-ness and then make articles on "Country X and animal rights" to go along with it or alternatively rename this article, use what we can and make a whopping great list about how every country treats its animals. BigHaz 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears not to be a good-faith nomination. The article was created some time ago, but I just noticed it today and tried to tidy it a little. Homey is currently following my edits because we're in a dispute. He knows I'm interested in Israel and in animal rights, so he's taking this opportunity to be unpleasant. He also hates to see anything positive written about Israel. The article does need a lot of work, but it's correct that Israel is one of the more progressive countries in the world when it comes to animal rights, so it could definitely become a legitimate article. There would also be valid criticism to add (from a rights perspective), regarding the continued use of animals in research, and so on. I doubt there's a huge amount of material out there, but certainly enough to justify an article. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, that's a POV dependant on your views on kosher/halal slaughter. If you think it's crueller than regular slaughter then Israel as well as Muslim countries would not rank as more progressive, if you think it's less cruel than they would. As for your personal attack, users should judge the article based on its merits and demerits, not on Slim's personal views about users. I don't hate to see anything positive about Israel, I just have a distaste for silly propaganda - it reminds me of the stuff you used to see from the old Soviet Union about how the grass is greener, the sky is bluer and the animals are happier - but again, the article should be judged on its actual merits. Homey 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It was created on October 26 last year. I edited it for the first time on July 21 at 17:53. You nominated it for deletion nine hours later at 03:04 July 22. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and since I put it on my watchlist when I first noticed it last year it came up on my screen when I logged on. Thanks for reminding me about it. It doesn't seem you have very much to actually say in defence of the article itself since you're spending so much space attacking me. You write "I doubt there's a huge amount of material out there, but certainly enough to justify an article." the first part of your sentence is true, I suspect, so I don't see how the second part follows. With scant material, only one source it seems, it doesn't seem to justify a whole article. Homey 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You didn't nominate it when Das Baz edited it on July 10. I won't keep arguing with you, because it's clear what you're up to. You should perhaps reflect on the wisdom of an administrator behaving like a troll and a stalker. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, I don't remember what I was thinking in October - I suspect I put it on my watchlist because I was dubious about the article and wanted to keep an eye on it to see if improved and then it dropped off my radar and I forgot about it. Please don't embarass yourself with specious accusations because I've AFD'd one of the hundreds of articles you've edited in the past week, particularly since you know I edit Israel-related articles and have for a long time. Homey 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've had fine interactions with each of you (many of my extra-Wiki views, I think, are a bit more consistent with those of SV than those of Homey), and I appreciate that each of you is sincerely interested in improving the encyclopedia. Here, FWIW, I don't think Slim's inference apropos of Homey's wikistalking is unreasonable, but, notwithstanding concerns about less-than-ideal inter-user civility or impaired collaboration, where a nom can reasonably be understood as consistent with encyclopedic purposes, such that it is, relative to the project, propitious, the underlying motivation isn't particularly relevant. The nom here isn't disruptive—since several of us appear to support deletion—and can be justified on encyclopedic grounds, so, even as I'd likely conclude that Homey's conduct is indecorous, I think we'd do well to overlook it and focus on encyclopedic concerns. Joe 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I can see some potential value in a systematic series of "Animal rights in X country" articles, but this one is just sloppy and reads like a propaganda piece. Israel banning whaling is like that town in California that banned detonating nuclear weapons within city limits. Opabinia regalis 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep good job starting the rewrite, Veriditas.--Chaser T 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Keep and slap a POV tag on it. I found some articles on PubMed, but one source isn't likely to lead to a NPOV article. Could you two focus on the content instead of carping at each other? If it's dispute resolution you need, there's a place for that. Thanks.--Chaser T 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - as a former member of http://www.anonymous.org.il/english.htm I find it more important to protect animals than to have a wikipedia article on our work but still this article could be of use (especially if expnded) Zeq 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wouldn't mind seeing this in a larger article comparing various nations laws and views on the subject, but not in a stand-alone article. Medtopic 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to Animal rights in Israel, and cleanup. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Opabinia and inasmuch I don't imagine that the article might ever comprise sufficient encyclopedic detail as to evolve beyond stub status (if that conclusion is demonstrated to be wrong, I'd surely support keep), and, as such, inasmuch as it's an unnecessary fork (although, to be sure, not a POV fork), of of Cruelty to animals#Laws against animal cruelty and/or Animal rights#Animal rights in law; WP:SIZE would suggest that the article be merged into one of the overarching articles, except that the body of the information already exists at the latter (and anything else to be merged is sufficiently simple, publicly available, and non-original as to be replicated in the latter without GFDL concerns). Joe 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Potentially informative. Without naming any names, the timing of this nomination gives the appearance to disinterested observers of wikistalking on the part of the nominator. I hope that I'm wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 09:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Expand using what material? As for stalking, if there were a pattern of someone habitually following someone around and posting comments where they post comments or editing where they edit (see, for example, Zeq's edit below) then you can speak of wikistalking. It's absurd to make such an accusation on the basis of one article, particularly one as obviously substandard as this one and particularly when I am well known for editing on Israel related topics. Homey 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the most practical course is to create an Animal Rights around the World section in Animal rights, NPOV and move this article to that section, add other countries then, if warranted, create a spinoff AR around the world article. Anyway, given the lack of AGF exhibited above I'm taking both this AFD and the article off my wathcpage and will leave all this to others to implement if they so desire. Homey 11:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Homey. We should the same for Apartheid articles and maybe create Apartheid outside SA ???? Zeq 12:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move as per Homey above. Vizjim 13:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It would make the animal rights page too long and lopsided to have a special section on Israel. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Animal rights in Israel and put POV tag on it. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the new article proposed by Homey. While having POV issues (there is nothing "progressive" about "animal rights" IMO) a page that discusses comparative legislation and movement issues in various countries would be more valuable than having this done piecemeal. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. Jon513 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and agree with JChap2007: move to Animal rights in Israel. --Daniel575 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've rewritten this article and moved it to Israel and animal welfare. Until the animal rights section grows large enough, it should be maintained as a response to the animal welfare policies of Israel in the criticism section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informative, interesting and notable article. Move to Animal rights in Israel. We also need an Animal rights by country category. Carioca 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SV and Viriditas. 6SJ7 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because Israel probably has the best wild nature conservation program in the Middle East. Additionaly, Israel's people are influenced by Judaism's laws of caring for animals, see Noahide Laws#Food laws. Hunting is discouraged and animals are to be used primarily for food. IZAK 06:59, 25 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.