Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roadside zoos in the United States

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roadside zoos in the United States[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Page is almost entirely empty sections and red links. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for this would be Zoo#Roadside zoos. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I mean, there definitely is potential to this article. Most of these zoos are notable and have news-sites cover them, even though nearly all of them are for bad things such as violations and animal deaths. (example 1, example 2) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's what I'm kinda wondering. The "main article," for want of a better term, states that "Since they are sometimes less regulated, roadside zoos are often subject to accusations of neglect and cruelty." So is that the criteria for inclusion? A small zoo gets hit with an accusation of animal cruelty, it's located near a road, and gets added to this list? I wonder if this isn't a case of WP:ATTACK or WP:COAT? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the criteria. The criteria is that it must be a roadside zoo. It is not the point that they are particularly volatile, however if that makes it notable, that's fine. It still has to be a roadside zoo (this seems confusing, I can reword it if you want) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only two articles, one of which is already in the List of zoos in the United States. There's no need for two lists at this point. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. The topic is already addressed in Zoo#Roadside zoos sufficiently. If the red linked articles are developed into articles on notable subjects, than a list can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague and indiscriminate list. Should the zoo be noteworthy enough for inclusion, it may be documented at List of zoos in the United States. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing to merge, and the capital R makes it a useless redirect. We already have a list of zoos in the United States which would encompass this sort of zoo. There's furthermore difficulty in making a distinction, with the two zoos on the list that we do have articles for appearing to be normal zoos (a 60 acre zoo=roadside?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 27 August 2016 (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.