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 keep. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Fix the article please. Violations of OR and copyvios MUST be deleted. There is little salvagable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami v. Nebraska and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State v. Notre Dame, 1966 where attempts are being made to save two articles that are clear copyvios not just possibles. BlueValour 17:42, 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]

KEEP - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Monkey-baiting Rat-baiting and Lion-baiting articles. SirIsaacBrock 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Article could use quite a bit of work. Even more optimal would be if the gruesome nature of the story of the bulldog and the dwarf were made slightly more palatable. Nonetheless, article is well-sourced and NPOV. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has no referenced secondary sources (the two listed books are not used for anything), and the entirety of the content that does not consist of gruesome anecdotes of fights reads "Human-baiting is a blood sport involving the baiting of humans." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deary me, deary me. I was so taken up by the bizarre story that it distracted me from the article content. I'm going to have to say, then, Delete pending an actual expansion of the article part, not just the stories. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Incorrect, the books both have info. In addition, read this secondary source in the article, which you have overlooked Low-Life Deeps/Chapter 1 SirIsaacBrock 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That is a primary source, and is used only to discuss a random anecdote. The article consists only of primary sourced anecdotes and the one sentance listed above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a strange article, but then it was a strange "sport". I had never heard of this before, but where else than Wikipedia could a person easily find out about it? And the fact that it's unpalatable now doesn't make it any the less a historic occurrence. Rbraunwa 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not convinced its an established sport, rather, they seem like a collection of anecdotes where humans were baited. In any case, assuming the sourcing is correct, I only see a need of a clairification for the lead paragraph. And also, I would request nom cite an actual WP policy next time he/she would like to post an afd. hateless 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge reliable parts (if any) into bait (dogs). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:31, 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 articles using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - very interesting artickle -Towel401 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know if this or monkey-baiting are reliable, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I can't help but think that these nominations have been made in bad faith. –Joke 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many citations in the articles up for deletion. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless information can be included as to how common human-baiting was, any controversy surrounding it, etc. If these are rare incidents, then I don't think we need an article on them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:01, 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 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but not against a merge into dog baiting on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominator has not noted any valid reasons for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Aranae 18:53, 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 13:13, 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.