Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human-baiting (2nd nomination)

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. There is clear support to retain the article (now across two AfDs), and the policy basis for doing so seems sound enough. There is also agreement that it could use some editorial help, but that's not a reason to delete. -Splash - tk 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting[edit]

This page is nothing but three reports "proving" that the subject exists. There have been no reliable sources put forward that discuss the subject. The previous AfD was in July 2006. Since then, the article has not been touched since November 2007, and before that, since February 2007. The article was kept so that it could undergo a clean-up and better sourcing - I think it's fair to say this isn't going to happen. Balkan Fever 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I understand the concerns of the nominator. But all good things take time :-), and this piece is a well researched article. In addition, there are Scholarly articles written on the subject as shown here [1]. Do most of the papers address Human Baiting with regards to mosquitoes, yes! But there are a few on the articles subject. Shoessss | Chat 12:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with things taking time, but this is overkill. Nothing has been added to the page since the last AfD. After all the arguments for keeping it, all anyone did was tag it. If you want to improve the article, go ahead, because it's clear no-one else will. Balkan Fever 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – LOL and yet another article to add to my list of things to do :-). Shoessss | Chat 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "Scholarly articles" to which you've linked deal in the subject as presented in the article. Are there other articles? --Sturm 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After several pages of googling I found little that didn't relate either to mosquito research or trace back to our article. It looks to me like pure OR. There were a few fugitive references by analogy but no evidence that a practice exists and is documented outside our pages. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's got OR perhaps, but aren't the book sources worth something?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move content if necessary. There are no independent sources verifying that any such subject exists. Asserting that there is such a phenomenon, based on a few anecdotes stretched over a couple of centuries, is original research at its most tenuous. Having said that, the sourced material seems to be suitable for a page on dog-fighting or suchlike, so I have no objection to its being moved if an editor wants to do so. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting article and historically significant that depicts an encyclopedic topic. Plenty of third party sources cited including images of the events. Each one provides context on the subject. The sources included in the article are:
The Sporting Times circa 1807
In the Potteries
Fleig, D. (1996). History of Fighting Dogs. pg 119 - 124 T.F.H. Publications. ISBN 0-7938-0498-1
^Note 1 : Homan, M. (2000). A Complete History of Fighting Dogs. pg 101 - 104 Howell Book House Inc. ISBN 1-58245-128-1

Chessy999 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the citations don't give the impression that the term was used to describe the incidents as a class. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sourced, encyclopedic,interesting, meets WP:V and WP:N. Seem fine to me. BTW such historical topics will always fare badly in Google searches but the hard copy references do the job. BlueValour (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that human baiting is interesting, however the article is not encyclopedic, and it is not fine. The keep votes in the previous AfD were calling for improvement of the article, and this never happened. Unless you know that you are going to improve it, don't assume a random reader/editor will. Balkan Fever 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles need improvement, that does not mean they should be deleted. Chessy999 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been improved since it was first considered for deletion. Why should anyone assume it will be improved now?Balkan Fever 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personally I do not see a need for much improvement in the article, it reads just fine, with plenty of information, citations and images. Chessy999 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Decent article with pics & refs, just because its a tad barbaric doesnt mean it should be suppressed Towel401 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no interest in "suppressing" anything. The article is by no means decent. As a reader, unacquainted with the subject, all the information I got from the article was: Human-bating is the baiting of humans. It has happened. Balkan Fever 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BalkanFever, you do not appear acquainted with the subject in the least. Chessy999 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The whole point of the article is to inform me (an uninformed reader), so that I can learn more about it. If an encyclopedia cannot do that, what is the point? Balkan Fever 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never know when somebody is going to improve it. and its a tad hard to find more references because the practice is so old. Towel401 (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in your comment above you advised us that you are acquainted with the subject of human-baiting, if so, then prove it by improving the article rather than attempting to have a good article deleted. Chessy999 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not acquainted with the subject. This article has failed in acquainting me with the subject. Since you want to keep it, you should improve it. Inform me, and other users who come across this page, what human-baiting is (other than the baiting of humans, which is implied by the name). If you don't want to improve it, and nobody else wants to improve it (as one can see from the edit history), then why should we keep an uninformative article that will be the same in one year's time, until it is proposed for deletion again, and you come back with the same arguments? Balkan Fever 11:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to The Cockfight: A Casebook, the Brummy/Physic incident led to England banning most forms of "baiting" from bears to badgers. The article is somewhat anecdotal and needs a rewrite. --Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am considering whether a broader article incorporating gladiatorial contests with animals and other things like Daniel (in the lions' den) might be a better approach. Among other things, if this was known by any contemporary name, it was not "human-baiting". --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article title Human-baiting is the correct name. It is the baiting of a human against a dog. Chessy999 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "baiting" means. The problem is this: Even if it's technically correct, if it's a term nobody has ever used, we should avoid it. WP:COMMONNAME. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look in the two books noted in the Reference section, human-baiting is the term used. In addition, the article name is consistent with the other baiting articles. Chessy999 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that the IP that notified BlueValour and Towel401 [2] (among others) is a sock of SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · block log), creator of the article. Balkan Fever 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is as may be but it in no way devalues my comment. I commented on the first AFD and have the page on my watchlist. When I got the 'friendly notice' I decided I better comment before I forgot but without it I would have commented anyway! BlueValour (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - CommentTrue, it does not devalue your comment, I just think a user evading his ban should be looked into. Balkan Fever 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then Delete - This article reads well but I also doubt it necessitates it's own article now. The examples described didn't so much seem like examples of a sport class as much as isolated examples of rarely attempted and ridiculously dangerous feats of machismo. Not the sort of thing that typically ends up with a distinct title unless it becomes a fad, which this evidently never has. Suggest a merge of all useful material to bait (dogs) and then deletion. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to make the point that 'merge then delete' is not a valid action. If part of the content is merged then the history must be retained with a redirect for GFDL licensing considerations. BlueValour (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has some sourcing already. It could use some improvement, but is certainly not dreadful. The practice has been verified. I believe that more sources can be found, but I was informed by the article as it is. In a nutshell, this was a seldom practiced spectator sport during the heydey of baiting exhibitions. What more needs to be said? Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2008 (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.