Deletion of Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species

Comment: POV fork, violates . Obviously unencyclopedic essay, and a pretty terrible one at that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:OR, ,  out the wazoo. With regards to Viriditas' comments above, Wikipedia:Don't template the newbies ''does not exist''. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars does. And is an essay, not a guideline, not a policy. I have no idea where this DTTN comes from, but if people break the rules, that's what the templates are for, no matter who they are. Regardless of this side-discussion, '''request snow close
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY||WP:POV)

Comment: Despite what Viriditas says, there is no salvageable content in the article; it reads exactly like someone's essay assignment. It is full of original research: "There are many social implications of the bioengineering of animal species because it is an unnatural process"; " it is not right for anyone to not have family members"; "The specie would have to rely on human researchers to take care of it and give it the care it needs"; "Another implication is choosing who is to care for this animal and take responsibility for it. Who will own it? Who will pay for any medical care it will need?" (OR, then editorialised); "Precautions need to be taken incase this animal is used for food and is poisonous." Those are the most obvious ones taken from one section alone. I've checked each one against the three source - the sources seem to be more further reading, rather than actual sources for information presented in the article. I appreciate the concerns expressed by Viriditas that this is from a new user, etc etc; however, if we were to remove all of the original research, we would be left with next to nothing, |certainly not enough to continue with. Thus deletion is the best way to go; if someone wants to write a friendly message on the author's talk page about why the article was deleted and how to better contribute to Wikipedia in the future, go for it (I'll do it if no one else wants to). No, we shouldn't bite the newbies; however, that should never be a licence to allow blatantly unencyclopdic & unsalvageable material to remain on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)