The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Appears to be based largely on
original research. Or maybe we all really believe it is perfectly legal to rape animals in, for example, New Mexico and West Virginia? This entire content area seems to suffer from OR by people who may have more than just a casual interest in the topic. This may technically qualify for speedy deletion under
criterion G5 as the creating user is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but the details are unclear.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
22:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, unsourced. If anything, there are 24 other templates on
Animal rights by country or territory that need scrutiny, all with similar content and many of then unsourced:
Comment I've created many of those templates but provided ample resources for everything, including literature, laws and reliable news sources. If there is any unsourced material or original research in anything I have created, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. There are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page:
c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete because it suffers from the same original research that
the now-deleted article 'Legality of bestiality by country or territory' suffered from. To make a broader point raised by LaundryPizza03 above, there are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page:
c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:06, 4 June 2021 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Only linked to one article which is redirected to the mainspace article. The rest of the article is red links which only link to the template. The mainspace article is also under question for notability and concerns over self-published sources. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
14:49, 28 May 2021 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Appears to be based largely on
original research. Or maybe we all really believe it is perfectly legal to rape animals in, for example, New Mexico and West Virginia? This entire content area seems to suffer from OR by people who may have more than just a casual interest in the topic. This may technically qualify for speedy deletion under
criterion G5 as the creating user is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but the details are unclear.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
22:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, unsourced. If anything, there are 24 other templates on
Animal rights by country or territory that need scrutiny, all with similar content and many of then unsourced:
Comment I've created many of those templates but provided ample resources for everything, including literature, laws and reliable news sources. If there is any unsourced material or original research in anything I have created, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. There are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page:
c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete because it suffers from the same original research that
the now-deleted article 'Legality of bestiality by country or territory' suffered from. To make a broader point raised by LaundryPizza03 above, there are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page:
c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:06, 4 June 2021 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Only linked to one article which is redirected to the mainspace article. The rest of the article is red links which only link to the template. The mainspace article is also under question for notability and concerns over self-published sources. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
14:49, 28 May 2021 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).