Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel with ferrets

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 of the debate was Merge with Ferret, even a lot of the delete votes were saying "Delete or merge", so the consensus seems pretty strong for a merge. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel with ferrets

No encyclopaedic value. Wikipedia is neither a source of airline policies nor a pet care manual. Salvageable material can be merged with Ferret. Exploding Boy 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Yanksox (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ferret --Alphachimp talk 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a ferret guide. Jammo (SM247) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Ferret per nom. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Ferret JeffStickney
    • Would you mind explaining your rationale for keeping? What policy are you basing that vote on? Exploding Boy 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • From WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia-"After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic" The fact that some airlines have restrictions on ferrets , and some countries have laws about travelling with ferrets is every bit as encyclopedic as the Ferret article's listing of which states outlaw ferrets. The length of the ferret article justifies the split. JeffStickney
        • Also from WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't think this deserves an article on its own. Why not add a section to the Ferret page which states that transporting ferrets between countries may be restricted. Wiki doesnt need to list which of the worlds airlines allow ferrets and which dont. Let anyone who wants to know contact the customs of the country they wish to go to and the airline with which they want to travel. Vote below. Viridae 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
          • The fact that someone planning a trip would have to call customs and ALL the major airlines and spend hours on hold just to find out this information means that it is useful information to some people, and it is information that people would have an interest in looking up. As such it is neither "cruft" nor "indiscriminate". Your argument is that it does not belong here because someone can get the same information by spending a day on the telephone to various agencies. By the same argument NO ARTICLE would belong in Wikipedia because someone could get the same information by spending a day in a library. JeffStickney 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Ferret article isn't that long anyway, and nearly the entire thing is about pet ferrets. Exploding Boy 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Rodentcruft ~ trialsanderrors 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ferrets are not rodentsJeffStickneyIf you are going to vote to delete an article- you should at least read the article first!JeffStickney 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a pet care manual. --Coredesat 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The WP:NOT article you linked to does not say that at all. If you are going to pretend to quote policy, quote the actual policy. Don't just make stuff up.JeffStickney 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename as something like Ferrets as pets and instate all current material at Ferret regarding 'ferrets as pets' at this topic, not just this stuff about travelling. If it's easier to Delete then Delete. Basing this on the fact Mouse has the spin-off Fancy mouse, which is basically just "mice as pets". (Yes I know ferrets are mammals not rodents... now) --DaveG12345 08:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not encylopedic. DarthVader 08:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:DAFT and delete this mustelicruft. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per nom. --WinHunter (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge A small part of it into Ferret and Delete the rest. Reasoning above. Viridae 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the good, Delete rest -- MrDolomite 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Certainly not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Maybe ferretpedia... Wickethewok 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - too thin to stand on its own. Ace of Risk 16:36, 23 June 2006

(UTC)

  • Merge salvagable info into ferret, Delete this article. Not encyclopaedic. Advanced 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into ferret. --Musicpvm 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not even sure how ferrets as pets could be considered anywhere close to being encyclopedic. Pascal.Tesson 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or move to Wikitravel. —Psychonaut 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that Wikitravel is not part of Wikimedia, and as the two have different licenses it is not appropriate to cut and paste or to move articles bstween the two. This article was originally a subsection of the Ferret article, and within the context of that article it made perfect sense. While I agree that the ferret article is long enough to warrant this being split off of it, and WP:NOT "wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" states that splitting articles is completely appropriate, it appears that this article is going to be shot down. If it is going to be deleted, then the contents could at least be moved back into the Ferret article, as this information would make sense and be useful within the context of that article. But honestly, most of the "delete" voters appear to be merely jumping on the bandwagon without having even bothered to read this article or the related Ferret article.JeffStickney 20:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • On what basis do you make that claim? Again, as stated above, the Ferret article is not to long to accomodate what little salvageable material there is in this article. Featured articles are often substantially longer. Exploding Boy 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The first comment appeared one minute after you had nominated the article for deletion. The "rodentcruft" comment showed absolutely no knowledge of ferrets which demonstrates that that person did not read the articles. The WP:DAFT vote showed that that person missed the point entirely. Even the person who was on my side but suggested a "ferrets as pets" article missed the point because the Ferret article is primarily about "ferrets as pets" (as a fully domesticated animal they are kept primarily as pets). None of these people got here from looking up information on ferrets. They saw the listing on "articles for deletion", took a quick glance at the article, and voted before bothering to find out what the article was about or the context in which it was written. Your nomination and your comments on the other hand were in good faith. The essential argument was that it should have remained a subsection of that article rather than being branched out into its own. My opinioon on that issue is that that would have worked either way. Wikipedia's policy is that branching out articles is completely acceptable. A personal style preference as to how long you feel an article should be, does not justify taking such a drastic step as calling in administrators to erase someone's article. As to the "cruft" and "not encyclopedic" arguments, I would say that this has a niche interest. Not everyone is interested in knowing this information, but some people-namely ferret owners- are. To those people it is useful information that they would have an interest in looking up. I have no interest in the characters of SpongeBob SquarePants, but that does not give me the right to try to have the article List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters erased. JeffStickney 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment I lined out the comment that this article was nominated in good faith. The fact that the first deletion vote occured ONE MINUTE after the article was nominated is very fishy- especially when that user has "sox" as part of the name. I suspect puppetry.JeffStickney 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I nominated the article and then used a sockpuppet to stack the votes? I certainly hope not. Exploding Boy 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

          • Comment I made the suggestion to rename. The very title of this article does, I'm afraid, make it seem a silly topic, and that doesn't help its survival chances. It also seems to fail the guideline that advises against articles about "extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about" (see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas). Reading the article, it became clear to me that this article has very limited growth prospects and should probably just be merged back to Ferret. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I did indeed read the both this and the Ferret article, and I assumed this article had been split from the main because the main one was becoming too large. I therefore looked for precedents in other animal/pet articles on Wikipedia that may help this article's case, because as a choice for splitting from a main article, this one is a bad one IMO. I felt the pets part of the Ferret article could very well gain its own article (there is precedent with Mouse/Fancy mouse), leaving behind details of "ferret the animal". I personally doubt that such an article would ever end up on AfD. I don't think this article has such a survival chance. You appear to hint that my suggestion was made in bad faith. Certainly is not the case. --DaveG12345 04:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously good info for our readers with ferrets. Also reflects airline policy. --JJay 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If any consideration is given to keeping, then do the suggested merge. WP is not a how to and this article seems to be exactly that, a how to. It also includes non encylopedic material best left on the travel providers web sites. Vegaswikian 23:25, 27 June 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.