Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poaching and Abuse of Dolphins in Japan

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. Unanimous consensus against existing as a stand-alone article. Consensus is less clear between delete or redirect. There are some good arguments against redirect, and it seems to me that this is an unlikely phrase for somebody to type into a search box, which means it's a poor choice for a redirect. So, delete seems to be the only remaining option. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poaching and Abuse of Dolphins in Japan[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a POV polemic that adds nothing to the already existing and more encylopedic Dolphin drive hunting and Taiji, Wakayama. The few references can not be called reliable and even the title is completely misleading. Dolphins are certainly not poached Peter Rehse (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Dolphin drive hunting Duplicates the two articles mentioned by the nominator. Article is POV and there is nothing here worth merging. Title is a plausible redirect. Delete to kill the content history then redirect. Safiel (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is the major contributor's first article, and obviously they didn't understand the NPOV policy or heed the request not to create articles on existing topics. But we would have to go through the other articles carefully to say that this one contributes nothing. There are at least 2 cites to papers that don't appear in the other articles. POV is a rather weak reason for deletion, as it can be addressed on the Talk page. I'd suggest merging the parts that can be salvaged (even if they are small parts) to Taiji dolphin drive hunt. ~~Then delete this article, without a redirect.~~ Sorry, I'd like to clarify. I'm still new at this. I don't think the article title is worth keeping as a redirect. If we do merge anything, the history from this article should be moved along with the content, or this article left as a redirect, so that it has the history. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Dolphin drive hunting Although I agree with the general anti-hunting sentiment of the page, Wikipedia cannot host a page replete with statements such as "The method of capturing these beautiful creatures is truly horrifying" and "The Japanese Government also lied to the fisherman [sic]". I have read the page from top to bottom, and I agree with Safiel above that none of the content should be merged with the content of any other page. It is too biased. Syek88 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence "The method of capturing these beautiful creatures is truly horrifying." I don't see the other sentence "The Japanese Government also lied to the fisherman and told them that the reason they had to slaughter the dolphins was because they were eating all of the populations of fish that were sold in the markets." being a reason to delete the article. The article can be fixed later to follow the neutral point of view by indicating both the good reasons and the bad reasons for the Government to have lied. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be sensible, and possibly add sources and alternate views to the current main article. Whether it is merged or redirected, however, I'd strongly suggest move protection. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Dolphin drive hunting - Per Safiel and Syek88. NickCT (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Peter Rehse's comment - Title itself is quite POV. We should just delete. NickCT (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the title itself heavily POV and misleading. Do not think a REDIRECT is appropriate.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:NPOV in a way that the article would have to be rewritten anyway. Oppose redirect because the title is very POV. — kikichugirl ^inquire 05:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete it unless it can't be fixed to have a neutral point of view without being rewritten entirely. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:09, 14 December 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.