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.
Keep - I think this needs a good cleanup to avoid OR and possible copyvio and needs better sourcing. Having said that, it is definitely encyclopaedic and of interest. BlueValour 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes but that is not sourcing. Each section, or set of facts, needs to be tied in with a specific chapter of a book or a webpage, for example. BlueValour 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are five citations noted and four identified artists paintings posted. For an article on the topic of Monkey-baiting, I think that is reasonable. -:) SirIsaacBrock 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that you may be missing the point. To take one of numerous examples I could pick out of your series of articles, if I wanted to check that 'Jacco Macacco was a celebrated monkey gladiator' it should be clear by that paragraph exactly where I should go and it isn't. BlueValour 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This historical topic should be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. We can't censor history. Also, I don't understand how this article can be original research when it quotes contemporary periodicals. If we applied that standard now, we wouldn't be able to derive information from newspapers and magazines. Is that Wikipedia's policy? And anyway, the books cited are clearly secondary sources themselves, so OR doesn't apply to them. Rbraunwa 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced, interesting topic. Needs cleanup to read more professionally (i.e., "The English were always keen for something new to challenge their dog fighting breeds" isn't an encyclopedic style of writing), but it looks pretty good in general. -- Scientizzle 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please make such changes. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep I attempted to remove some of the unencyclopedic writing to improve the overall tone, but found myself removing most everything but the first sentence and the quotations. I'm swayed by Laura Scudder's delete argument and BlueValour's comments, too. I'm not voting delete, however, for the same reason as Malber...This article doesn't outright fail any standard deletion arguments, but has considerable issues that can and should be addressed. -- Scientizzle 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems like a legit article. Sanbeg 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know anything about monkey-baiting, but judging by the company this nomination keeps (i.e. the absurd nominations of lion-baiting and rat-baiting), I'd judge this one is a keeper too. –Joke 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be entirely original research, as there isn't a single citation provided to suggest that this was a sport in the commonly-used sense of the word (and wording like "quite unusual fight" in the quotes suggests that these were no more than isolated incidents). Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a Blood sport not a Sport. In addition, the books in the reference section of the article were written recently, they are not original research. SirIsaacBrock 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is absolutely true, it is a blood sport and doesn't appear to be original research. –Joke 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten into more than a summary of two isolated incidents. If it's a sport than it's like the article baseball consisting of nothing but descriptions of two isolated games. It may be sourced and verifiable, but that alone does not an encyclopedia article make. — Laura Scudder☎ 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After having carefully read the article, and reading Laura's comments, I find myself in agreement with her, and think that if there is no other history of "human bating" then this merely merits a mention in the main dog baiting article. –Joke 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if isolated, it appears to be sourced well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 14 July 2006 (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.