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]
While that is true, if it were grounds for deletion, most of Wikipedia would be gone. –Joke 02:01, 14 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 use newspapers and magazines a sources. Is that Wikipedia's policy? And anyway, the books cited are clearly secondary sources themselves, so OR doesn't apply to them. Rbraunwa 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to review WP:RS with respect to history vs. current events. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup and move extensive quotes to wikisource. I have little doubt that lion-baiting has a long and undistinguished history, and thus deserves an article at least as much as the next Pokémon character. –Joke 01:52, 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 13:14, 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» 16:14, 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.