Talk:Human-baiting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
|
Aside from the introduction, the remainder of the article is worthless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"Worthless" for what reasons? Are the extracts from (apparently) contemporary sources not genuine? The illustrations appear authentic to me, and the books referred to are both available on Amazon. I'm not saying that the article isn't a candidate for deletion, but I think it's up to you to explain _why_ it should be deleted. Tevildo 10:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- User:Hipocrite is a well known sock puppet of User:Hpuppet and was banned sometime ago. He spammed all the baiting article with similiar stuff. This editor needs his account blocked AGAIN ! 70.51.198.36 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not an encyclopedic treatment of the subject to say "the subject exists," and then tell some stories. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sock puppet or not, I agree with him. This article is terrible. It shouldn't be deleted though....actually, when did Hipocrite mention anything about deleting it?
[edit] Rewrite tag
Articles can always use some tweaking but a full rewrite is not required for this well researched article. SirIsaacBrock 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The whole article needs to be re-organized. Right now it's like baseball containing only descriptions of three single regular season games in three disparate years.
- Were there trends in popularity or practice? How about how it was viewed by different segments of the public? None of this is addressed in the current format. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Magazine article?
This reads like a satirical magazine article, more of the sort of parody you'd read in The Onion than in a serious encyclopedia. I'm flagging it with the magazine flag. Also, if the sources so freely quoted are copyrighted they need to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry, this forgetting to sign is my biggest newby goof here. Trilobitealive 03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remove +tag - the citations and quotations add value and support the topic of the article. Headphonos 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
