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. Sandstein 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South China animal consumption incidents[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article is interesting, but it is stuff to be reported by magazines, and it has no long-term historical significance (or at least, cannot be gleaned from the article), even if it passes minimum WP:GNG requirements. Colipon+(Talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as news. Or kick it over to Wikinews. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be possible to have an article on the general topic, but not one specifically on 2008 incidents, which as others have said is news not encyclopedia material. Borock (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references. if someone wants to expand it, they certainly can, but that;s no reason for deletion. If there was a clister of these in 08, it would make sense to have this as a separate article--if they'vebeen continuous since then, it should be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article; optionally, merge some content to the targets below. Check the references again, DGG. Only three of the links actually work: the Nddaily, CBS, and AnimalAsia. Right off the bat, that means much of the article is uncited. Furthermore, the more important assertions in the article are erroneously cited, while only peripheral ones like the SARS are cited. The Chinese-language Nddaily source is used to cite a story that supposedly ran in the Southern Daily News, when in fact, the Southern Daily News is never mentioned in that source. The CBS article is biased, resting fully upon the testimony of protestors against the practice of eating cat and dog.

More importantly, the 'incidents' format is weaker than need be, whereas the practice is noteworthy, and covered already in Cat meat, Dog meat, Cantonese cuisine#Dog and cat consumption, and possibly others. Anyone who can read Chinese can use the Nddaily source to add very good information indeed to these articles, covering prices, shipping practices, and information about consumers. The AnimalAsia source has ample photographic evidence of the practice. The CBS article, however, covers only a single day's demonstration in response to a brief flurry of news articles, which we do not have access to. Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (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.