Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal welfare during World War II

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 userfy. I'm going to move this to User:Jonas_Vinther/Animal welfare during World War II. Jonas, please continue to work on the moved article and discard the copy-and-paste version in your sandbox. Copy-paste destroys the edit history, which is important to preserve. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animal welfare during World War II[edit]

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

This article appears to be factual, but the way the information is synthesized is a case of original research which violates WP:NOT#ESSAY. I'm having difficulty finding any credible academic sources that have specifically studied animal welfare during this time frame. Lacking this the subject fails WP:GNG. Animal welfare is a notable subject, but we can't create articles about notable subjects with arbitrary time frames. If there are reliable sources covering this specific topic then I will retract this nomination. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can assure you, Tchaliburton, that the are reliable sources covering the specific topic; the article is simply incomplete. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be userfied until you have included those sources demonstrating notability. Then it could be moved into the article space when it's ready. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But ... I think that when it's "out in the open" common editors will have a chance to see it and contribute to it - nobody's going to find it in my sandbox. Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided about deletion, but I do want to note that we already have Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I suppose the question here is whether reliable sources indicate that there is notable material about other countries that is specific to that time period. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be quite a lot of literature specific to Nazi Germany. Not so much with any of the other countries. That makes sense given the political and philosophical changes during the Nazi regime. It's also worth noting that Animal welfare in Nazi Germany covers a wider time frame than WWII because the Nazi era is not synonymous with the WWII era. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I can assure you that all the country's mentioned in the article, there is substantial reliable sources on, otherwise I would not have added them. The article is simply incomplete, as I stated before. Perhaps I was stupid to make a real article before it was finish or much longer. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not stupid at all! Please just make sure that you have secondary sources that indicate that, for each country included, there is actually a subject for that time period that should be treated as distinct and notable, relative to times before and after. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you Tryptofish I have the secondary sources - once again - it's simply incomplete. I will resume work on the article shortly. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should retract your deletion, Tryptofish. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are referring to. Please explain. If I deleted something that I should not have, I'll certainly fix it, but I don't know what this is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of reliable, independent, third-party sources to massive expand this article. There is defiantly enough sources to cover the topics mentioned and more. I will began the expansion sooner or later. I'm simply saying, as you suggested yourself in case there should be enough sources or coverage, that you should retract your deletion. You understand now, Tryptofish? Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you are saying that you want me to change my "undecided" comment to "keep". (In reality, I never endorsed deletion so far.) I'm comfortable leaving what I said as it is, pending further discussion here. I could be persuaded to "keep" sooner by seeing some key sources that would unambiguously establish the other countries as noteworthy and distinct topics during the time period (beyond just statements that such sources exist). I could also be persuaded to delete by arguments that such sources really do not exist, although at the moment I'm leaning towards erring on the side of giving the page more time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrrr! I'm such a moron, I confused you with Tchaliburton. I'm so sorry, Tryptofish. All the previous messages of mine were meant for Tchaliburton. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Jonas Vinther, I'm still not seeing any references that focus on the WWII period. The closest are the references that discuss animal welfare in Nazi Germany. The section on Britain still strikes me as original research and there is nothing about any of the other belligerents (in fact, most of the belligerents aren't even listed). I'm not saying that this article can't be notable, I'm just saying it's not ready yet. I would support converting this to a draft in your user space until it's ready. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is a mere essay, not an encyclopedic article. I did hear something that a lot of British people had their pets put donw at the oubreak of war, perhaps because they did not think they would be able to feed them, when food was rationed. Otherwise, I doubt animal welfare in UK or US was much different in 1940 from 1935 or 1948. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - then delete it, and I'll re-create it when I made it a FA-class article in my userbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Vinther (talk • contribs) 17:31, August 5, 2014‎

If that's how this ends, it doesn't have to be deleted. You can just have it moved into your user space. But if you can provide, here, a list of the kinds of sources editors are asking for, we might decided to "keep". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I could do that. But, without sounding too negative, sounds like a lot of work just to prove that I have enough reliable, third-party, independent sources. Then I'd rather complete it in my userbox. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space, per the request directly above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have already copy + paste everything into my sandbox, so might as well just delete it, and I'll re-crate it later. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.