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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Time for our biannual deletion debate. The page is still almost exactly the same as when it was first created.

This page can be split up into four sections:

• The introduction
• Gentleman and the Bull Dog
• Brummy and the Bulldog
• East End Club

The latter three sections are only about individual examples of human baiting, not about human baiting itself; it does give a rough idea of what human baiting is like (although in a very indirect, unencyclopedic, anecdotical way, and no assertion or proof that human baiting in general is like that), but fails to provide any other information, such as

• When and where did people practice the sport of human-baiting?
• How frequent was human-baiting?
• What were people's views on human-baiting?

Et cetera, et cetera; there is no encyclopedic content about human-baiting in those sections, only some trivial encyclopedic content about those individual cases of human-baiting.

This leaves us with only the intro, which is exactly one sentence long: "Human-baiting is a blood sport involving the baiting of humans." Not only is this not enough for a complete article, it is also a disputed statement, as was made very obvious in the previous two AfDs; we have exactly three confirmed counts of human-baiting, but I have yet to see a source saying it was an actual blood sport rather than just an unusual variant of dog fighting.
The three individual stories are perhaps encyclopedic but wouldn't meet the notability guidelines for individual articles. This article is not about human-baiting at all (save for one sentence), and should therefore not be on Wikipedia. Normally, such an article would have to be rewritten, but there have been calls for that for almost four years now, so I don't see it happening anytime soon. VDZ (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, rather than having the article deleted, I'd like to see the article userfied, as the original creator seems to be very attached to this article (to the point of meatpuppeting at the previous AfDs), and the subject is indeed encyclopedic - the article itself is just extremely lacking. I say it should be userfied and the creator can put it back on the article namespace when it is a proper article - but until then, it shouldn't be here. VDZ (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. I would tend to agree with VDZ, in that the subject is worthy of an article but this article is not worthy of inclusion - for reasons spelled out. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strange things can happen three or four times in history without needing an encyclopedia article to cover the possiblity. Racepacket (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth coverage, no evidence to suggest this is a noteworthy phenomenon that occurs or occurred with any regularity. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. As stated before, the subject is notable enough, but the article itself just doesn't hit the mark well enough. Miyagawa (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have over 3 million articles and 99% of them are of less than good quality. We keep them in mainspace because this is our editing policy - readers will find them there and hopefully improve them. The suggestion that fights between humans and animals are historically rare is quite mistaken - please see Bestiarii for another article of a similar sort. Repeated nomination of this article in the hopes of getting a different result may be considered disruptive. Wikipedia has no deadline and notable sourced material should be retained per our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Colonel Warden. Quality is not a reason for deletion. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quality is not a reason for deletion (says Wikipedia, personally I disagree, but it's not something I can decide), but
    • Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
    • Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

are reasons for deletion according to Wikipedia's deletion policy. There is indeed no deadline, and therefore a new article on this subject would be welcome at any time in the future. However, at the current moment, and for the past four years, this article has been an eyesore that should not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and an article consisting of only three non-notable news stories is not an article that belongs on Wikipedia. The reason I renominated this article again is that the reason it was kept in the past was that it would be improved in the future. It doesn't seem like this is happening anytime soon, so I'd rather not have this article on Wikipedia until it becomes a proper article. 99% of Wikipedia articles being less than good quality is not a valid excuse for an article being of low quality. Furthermore, I can assure you that at least 90% of Wikipedia articles are of a better quality than this article (because, well, most of the articles are actually about their subject matter). Unless you can give multiple reliable sources on human-baiting itself, not about individual cases of human-baiting, human-baiting cannot be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. VDZ (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:NOEFFORT which explains that this is a weak argument for deletion. There seems to be no discussion by yourself of the article's problems on the article's talk page and so your own efforts are inadequate to meet our deletion policy. And the article already contains sources which meet your objection. A Complete History of Fighting Dogs has a chapter entitled Man versus fighting dog. The History of Fighting Dogs has a chapter entitled Fights against Man. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't seem to be able to find anything about the content of The History of Fighting Dogs, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that point, but the Man versus fighting dog section of A Complete History of Fighting Dogs is about the "Brummy and the Bulldog" story, and is mostly just copypasta from the original story. WP:NOEFFORT is nice, but it doesn't make an unnotable article notable. As for my efforts to the article, I placed a cleanup-rewrite tag on the page (which was immediately reverted by a sockpuppet of the original author without me noticing), and placed it back on the page some time later when I noticed it had been removed. The article's problems should be pretty obvious seeing how it was tagged multiple times by multiple people(although it was reverted each time by a sockpuppet of the original author) and the fact that it's been nominated for deletion twice. This just isn't a Wikipedia article. VDZ (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As you are not fully familiar with the sources and have made no attempt to discuss them at the article, your efforts do not satisfy the requirements of WP:BEFORE, especially as the consensus of two previous discussions has been to Keep the article. This just isn't a satisfactory nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what requirement of WP:BEFORE I don't satisfy. I don't think you can blame me for not reading an expensive out-of-print book; that's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as I can't check it so I can't disprove it. However, even with that, the article fails to meet the notability criteria. Also, ad hominem. Even if I would not have properly proposed it for deletion, my arguments still stand. I see you've added a rescue tag. There's five days left until the AfD closes; the article will have to be in a good enough state to not be deleted at that time. VDZ (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination violates item 7 in particular, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors." Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article's talk page and the previous two AfDs. There is already discussion on the talk page (in fact, the entire talk page is about the issue I'm concerned with: the article isn't about human-baiting at all). I didn't start another discussion as there are already 3 discussions. My objections haven't been dealt with. Also, good job removing all of the tags asking for improvement. I do not think the article will survive the AfD in its current state. VDZ (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd ~vote userify if the user in question wasn't banned. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news finds one relevant article about it [1]. This apparently happened quite a lot back in the days. Several historical publications about it are listed in the article. It certain has had enough coverage over the years. Does anyone sincere doubt this is a real thing that happened once? Dream Focus 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is again about the "Brummy and the Bulldog" story, and not about human-baiting in general. Maybe it happened often in the past, but Wikipedia:Verifiability requires us to have sources to back up that claim. On a more positive note, with the sources presented in this AfD, we can probably get a new article for Brummy and the Bulldog. We still have only (at most) one source for human-baiting as a blood sport. (And to answer your question; if it only happened once, that instance of it happening should get an article, not 'human-baiting'.) VDZ (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They passed laws against it in some areas, so its surely was a common problem. And the article list three notable examples of it. No sense having an article for each one of them. And when I said once, I meant, once upon a time. Dream Focus 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is that each of the examples only illustrates the individual cases, as if they were just random bizarre events, not a common event. Because there are only sources for the individual cases, WP:N says human-baiting in general is not notable enough to get an article, and WP:V says we can't write stuff about human-baiting in general as we have no sources about it. Therefore we can't have an article about human-baiting in general. VDZ (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no requirement that we cover topics "in general". Our job is to summarise secondary sources. If these sources choose to report the matter in this way then so it goes. Notability is established by this coverage and Dream Focus' finding that other sources report the same details confirms this notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It confirms the notability of the specific occurrence of human-baiting, not the practice of human-baiting itself. It's the same as how the notability of a video game does not automatically make its developer notable. VDZ (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The occurrences, the practice, the sources and our article are the same. The article does not make any claims for generality and nor should it if these fights were exceptional at that time. It is their exceptional nature which makes them especially notable just as other unusual events attract notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Article certainly has issues, but this is a legitimate subject for an article. Jack Merridew 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or Userfy). This article lists three cases of 'human-baiting', but contains nothing about the phenomenon itself - probably because it hasn't received any attention in reliable sources. Indeed, even the phrase 'human-baiting' appears to be a neologism invented for this article; I can't find it in any reliable sources elsewhere. Unless there are sources about the phenomenon itself, it must be considered non-notable and deleted. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Merridew. The lead should just summarize the three sections below, and nothing more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's another source that talks about Brummy.[2] Apparently that fight began the end of baiting in England. I'm not sure that "Human-baiting" is the correct title. That makes it sound more like a sport than it really was, since it was so rare (though still notable). Maybe Organized human vs. dog fighting or something else ponderous but descriptive. Then the lead can be "Three instances of man vs. dog fights have been reported on, one of which led to changes in laws." or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. This is the standard advice in such cases - to use a descriptive phrase in plain English. Retitling an article for clarity does not require deletion - just a move, which any editor may perform. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is not any evidence to suggest this is a noteworthy phenomenon which has occurred with any regularity. Hopefully we won't have to hold a fourth deletion discussion on this one. JBsupreme (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regularity is an argument to avoid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so contains articles about irregular events as well as regular ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Link does not seem to have anything to do with anything discussed just now. Care to elaborate? VDZ (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:JBsupreme's objection is that such events did not occur regularly. This irrelevant because Wikipedia covers numerous singular or irregular events. The supposition that a topic requires a certain scale before it may be covered here is a common fallacy which we know as WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Clear? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article's subject is a real thing, and mentioned in enough reliable sources to be proven as such. Google scholar reveals the term being used http://k9.fgcu.edu/articles/LillyPuckett.pdf "Just as their instinctual heritage has been programmed to fight other animals, it has been manipulated and applied toward forms of human baiting." Social Control and Dogs: A Sociohistorical Analysis by J. Robert Lilly and Michael B. Puckett. Can't find anything else with Google Scholar that isn't about mosquitoes. There are 13 articles about baiting Animal-baiting#Baiting_sports. Not a lot of old news sources out there to be found on the internet, but surely this was a common thing at various times and places throughout history. The Romans weren't the only ones that had people fighting animals for sport. Dream Focus 19:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've only just seen this. I will investigate further. While the article may be in a poor state now, this will not always be so. Take a look at Ferret legging, which User:Malleus Fatuorum deftly improved, or Wife selling, on which we both worked. Both obscure rituals, both now with worthy articles. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • pages 64 and 292 - use of men in the training of Bulldogs. Doubtless there is more out there. Parrot of Doom 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we relist this so that Parrot of Doom can get the time to improve the page? Today should be the closing date for the AfD, but it seems somebody finally stepped up to improve the article. VDZ (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't bother. I'll continue to work on it but not to a deadline. It'll either survive on its own, or be merged into Dog baiting. Parrot of Doom 11:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colonel Warden and Dream Focus. There is a point at which our personal bureaucratic/deletionist tendencies become harmful to the Foundation's vision statement. This is a good example. Ingersollian (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2010 (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.