Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal treatment in rodeo

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 keep. per WP:SNOW; feel free to revert if you disagree with me (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal treatment in rodeo[edit]

"This entire article is an instance of undue weight and needs to be deleted as a WP:COATRACK." (See article talk page on this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttermilk1950 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate topic for which a lot of reliable sources could be found. The article may need to be written in a different tone to achieve NPOV, and some more information could be added about what the industry regards as attempts to improve animal welfare, but that's no reason to delete. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was started as a very biased article by the nominator, but once other editors started to weigh in and a more balanced article started to emerge, the article is nominated for deletion, I only can guess because it is not reflecting his/her specific bias any more. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've dumped a fair amount of energy into working with the original author of this article and I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. (the user still owes me a donut) It's still possible a keeper can be dug out of what's there now... give it some time and see where things stand in a week or two. This (self) nomination is probably too early. ++Lar: t/c 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First WP:NPOV issues are not a reason for deletion. The article is clearly not a coatrack, it sticks the subject and nothing else. Therefore the reasons for nomination appear unsound. --neon white talk 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kim van der Linde and Neon white's reasons. Article is in need of work to get the sourcing and content to Wiki standards. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a very good article. If there's an WP:NPOV issue it must be addressed but certainly not by deleting the article. Laurent (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's the makings of a decent article here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to rodeo this is a well-written pov fork. Mystache (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic in itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presently NPOV, but redeemable. The topic deserves its own article. --David Iberri (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup– it seems like a valid spinout for its own article, not to mentioned reliably sourced. Some NPOV/questionable sourcing could be ironed out, but overall it seems OK for its own article. MuZemike 00:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix the NPOV issues and give it an encyclopedic tone. Appropriate spinoff from the rodeo article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the work done on this, a Strong Keep. The topic describes a movement of organisations and individuals who oppose the continuation of this sport, which if you've ever hung out with vegetarians, you know is an active and notable movement (regardless of people's views of the rightness or wrongness). It would be unwieldy in the extreme to try an merge this back into Rodeo (currently at 38,494 bytes), and most of the organisations or individuals involved may not be individually notable enough for their own articles. Certainly, the reasons given in the nom carry no weight. Other reasons for deletion come up against the common weakness of a false presupposition that any article ABOUT people with a POV, MUST be POV itself. T L Miles (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2009 (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.