127:
The article does a good job of presenting a well balanced exposition of a difficult, emotionally loaded subject. The style of the article - arguments for and against, with rebuttals for each - may not be common in WP, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it, and there's no policy (that I'm aware
238:
The article is well written, and an interesting read, but seems to be largely original research and, as mentioned, the subject can be better handled on vegetarianism/vegan pages. The point/counterpoint format also seems inapproriate, though I wouldn't delete on that basis
128:
of) that precludes or even expresses disapproval for such an article style. The article does a particularly good job of citing its sources, and the community does a good job of fire-fighting when people's passion gets the better of their editorial rigor.
472:, per Elembis. This article should NOT be deleted, but rather should be better sourced. The ethics if eating meat is a topic which deserves space in the wikipedia, and once properly sourced, much of the material in this article can easily remain. —
48:. Valid points were raised on both sides, but enough information does exist on the subject that an appropriate, encyclopedic article can be written. However, the current "point-counterpoint" article is at present in tone, format, and the amount of
154:
requires. Knowledge is not a source of original thought, and as well-intentioned and well-stated as the thoughts in this article might be, it is just that - original thought. Rather too bad to see this one go, though, it's well done.
142:. I had to think about this one for a while, and I was trying hard to find something that would nudge this up from being a very well written essay to a properly attributed article - but I can't find it. Unfortunately it appears to be
191:- The article is well written, provides the two opposing viewpoints on the issue, and appears to maintain a neutral bias throughout the article. It has to be a keep; as the ethics of meat-eating is a subject worth discussing about. -
253:
Largely unsourced and tottaly unencyclopedic point counter-point debate. Many of the citations qualify as sythesis of sources to prove a specific point. Great example of how wikipedia should not be a battleground.
308:- Too much original research, and too much like a battleground between veggos and omnis. As already said, only about 20% is worthwhile - and this 20% is already covered in other articles on vegetarianism etc. --
336:- It will need to be heavily expanded but I see it having potential; it's certainly the kind of thing that comes up in conversations...question: is it handled at all on the vegan/vegetarian pages?
520:
While I hate the layout and the ridiculous amount of "Some people say.......however,..." arguments, the subject is notable enough. As a side note, I'd like to remind everyone that POV is not a
116:
322:- I'm in the process of a major revision to this article, most of it will be deleted. There's enough about the ethics of eating meat to merit a short article. --
89:
84:
93:
268:
It's a good essay, but the sourcing relies upon summaries of more detailed arguments, and many details are unsupported. I see the POV as balanced.
76:
408:
421:. The article contains a good amount of material which should be removed until it can be sourced, but it also contains material which
538:
429:
says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." It specifically mentions
17:
52:
present unsalvageably far from that hypothetical future one. Hopefully, starting over will allow that article to be produced.
347:
It is too broad a topic to deal with only on the vegan/vegetarian pages, and not all vegans are so because of ethics. —
557:
543:
510:
479:
462:
448:
382:
368:
354:
340:
326:
312:
298:
274:
258:
243:
228:
195:
181:
132:
58:
80:
572:
521:
426:
36:
571:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
404:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
504:
499:
494:
476:
400:
351:
255:
434:
72:
64:
309:
179:
396:
296:
205:
unencylopedic point-counterpoint article. All the good stuff here is covered in other articles (
53:
392:: even if all the information isn't perfect it gives ideas on the subject to look up elsewhere.
534:
530:
473:
443:
348:
337:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
240:
430:
379:
365:
210:
289:
206:
151:
147:
49:
526:
459:
438:
323:
143:
110:
285:
192:
156:
129:
554:
270:
565:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
553:. Silly (humans need to eat dead animals) but encyclopedic. --
437:, which is already in place at the top of the article. —
106:
102:
98:
150:
but either way it's lacking the kind of sourcing that
425:
relevant and attributed to reliable sources. As the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
575:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
458:the neutrality of the article compromised
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
411:) 13:59, April 10, 2007 (UTC)
592:
558:00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
544:22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
511:00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
480:03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
463:01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
449:17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
355:03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
59:03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
522:valid reason for deletion
383:05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
369:18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
364:- A lotta useful info. --
341:17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
327:17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
313:10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
299:08:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
275:07:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
259:23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
244:22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
229:21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
196:19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
182:16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
133:14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
568:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
378:per Daniel J. Leivick
435:Template:Not verified
433:, which redirects to
73:Ethics of eating meat
65:Ethics of eating meat
490:Keep, but cleanup
447:
413:
399:comment added by
256:Daniel J. Leivick
57:
50:original research
46:keep but stubbify
583:
570:
507:
502:
497:
441:
412:
393:
294:
226:
223:
220:
217:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
114:
96:
56:
34:
591:
590:
586:
585:
584:
582:
581:
580:
579:
573:deletion review
566:
505:
500:
495:
456:strongly delete
431:Template:Verify
427:deletion policy
401:207.135.146.201
394:
290:
224:
221:
218:
215:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
87:
71:
68:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
589:
587:
578:
577:
561:
560:
547:
546:
514:
513:
492:per Calibas --
483:
482:
466:
465:
452:
451:
415:
414:
386:
385:
372:
371:
358:
357:
344:
343:
330:
329:
316:
315:
302:
301:
278:
277:
262:
261:
247:
246:
232:
231:
211:Andrew Lenahan
199:
198:
185:
184:
136:
135:
121:
120:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
588:
576:
574:
569:
563:
562:
559:
556:
552:
549:
548:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
519:
518:Keep, cleanup
516:
515:
512:
509:
508:
503:
498:
491:
489:
485:
484:
481:
478:
475:
471:
468:
467:
464:
461:
457:
454:
453:
450:
445:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
416:
410:
406:
402:
398:
391:
388:
387:
384:
381:
377:
374:
373:
370:
367:
363:
360:
359:
356:
353:
350:
346:
345:
342:
339:
335:
332:
331:
328:
325:
321:
318:
317:
314:
311:
307:
304:
303:
300:
297:
295:
293:
287:
283:
280:
279:
276:
273:
272:
267:
264:
263:
260:
257:
252:
249:
248:
245:
242:
237:
234:
233:
230:
227:
212:
208:
207:vegetarianism
204:
201:
200:
197:
194:
190:
187:
186:
183:
180:
177:
176:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:
137:
134:
131:
126:
123:
122:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
55:
54:Seraphimblade
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
567:
564:
550:
525:
517:
493:
487:
486:
469:
455:
422:
418:
395:— Preceding
389:
375:
361:
338:Jakerforever
333:
319:
310:58.165.47.97
305:
292:♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪
291:
281:
269:
265:
250:
235:
214:
202:
188:
157:
139:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
527:The ikiroid
488:Weak delete
282:Strong Keep
241:Chunky Rice
189:Strong Keep
178:•
146:or perhaps
125:Strong keep
380:Baristarim
539:Advise me
366:Lhademmor
334:Weak keep
266:Weak keep
409:contribs
397:unsigned
209:, etc.)
117:View log
477:Herboso
460:Gman124
439:Elembis
352:Herboso
324:Calibas
90:protect
85:history
376:Delete
306:Delete
286:Waitak
284:- per
251:Delete
239:alone.
236:Delete
203:Delete
193:XX55XX
152:WP:ATT
148:WP:SYN
140:Delete
130:Waitak
94:delete
496:Green
144:WP:OR
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
555:Ezeu
551:Keep
535:desk
531:talk
506:tree
501:wood
474:Eric
470:Keep
444:talk
419:Keep
405:talk
390:Keep
362:Keep
349:Eric
320:Keep
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
271:DGG
222:bli
115:– (
524:.
423:is
407:•
288:--
254:--
225:nd
219:ar
216:St
213:-
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
541:)
537:·
533:·
529:(
446:)
442:(
403:(
174:n
171:a
168:y
165:k
162:r
159:A
119:)
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.