Deletion of Wild animal suffering

Comment: I will move this article from |deletion to |cleanup unless anyone disagrees
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:DPR||WP:TC)

Comment: This article falls under , but that's not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments|quack cancer cures, after all. Authors of sources aren't required to be notable themselves, and in fact most journalists aren't notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: WP:TNT absolutely applies here. This article is written from the point of view of negative utilitarianism|negative utilitarians who want to either destroy the natural world, or eliminate all suffering through futuristic techno-magic (see abolitionism (bioethics)). The references are mostly to non-RS pseudoscience, and  certainly needs to be considered. This is not the basis for an article on the topic, if this even is notable as a topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I look at this article and I wince. At the moment, it is in such bad shape I have difficulty telling if an article should even exist in Wikipedia. To start with, exactly what is the topic? Is there even a widely accepted term called "wild animal suffering", and if so, where are the reliable sources that provide an accepted definition? Lacking that, it's hard to say what belongs in the article. But OK, let's say we get past that issue. Next is Mr. Magoo's point. Why is there a very large section of quotes from opponents of animal suffering? Unless there are reliable sources agreeing that most people are aginst it, there's  to consider. There's also original reserach thrown in. I don't know how I'd go about fixing it up, other than to start over -- assuming there's a valid Wikipedia topic buried somewhere in there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Passes . There is good coverage in mainstream . The article does have some issues, but  does not apply here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:TNT)