Deletion of Pig slaughter

Comment: I also wanted to mention that there are two big problems with the article, that virtually requires it be deleted. The article is unsourced, but quite lengthy. There isn't a little bit of  that went into it. There is a lot. That means that what would be done (should it be kept), is to attempt to find sources to justify the . This means that, if it is kept, it cannot be given proper weight. We're looking to justify the content already there, rather than looking for what content actually belongs there. It would be quite disturbing, to me, for us to go that route. The alternative, is the second problem. Suppose we keep the article, and simply remove the . As I pointed out earlier, that's the entire article. If we keep it, our options are to either 1) lower our standards, and settle on a biased article, or 2) blank the page, which amounts to deleting it, and start again.  Once you take out the , there is NO page. That, alone, should be enough to have people rethinking their position. Most of the arguments on here come down to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:ORIGINAL||WP:ORIGINAL||WP:ORIGINAL||WP:ORIGINAL||WP:MUSTBESOURCES)

Comment: I suggest we , since there are too many issues with the page. Tear it down, start again. Besides concerns about , there is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:CFORK)

Comment: All the problems described can be fixed by simply altering the existing content or its title. There is zero evidence to suggest that the topic itself is not |notable or |verifiable. In other words: we never delete articles just because they need cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: The slaughter of pigs as a specialist trade goes back to ancient Sumeria.  It has distinctive features such as scalding which are particular to the pig.  As the pig is a major type of livestock, the topic has great notability.  For an example of a source detailing this, see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KPi6XkazZYIC&pg=PA93 here.  Our |editing policy is to develop this material not to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: The subject is both |notable and |verifiable and because of religious and cultural requirements is different enough from other animals that it needs a page in its own right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: unsourced  of Animal slaughter and Slaughterhouse. No evidence of any substantive coverage that would not fit into these (or related) articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: The |verifiability argument is valid, but you actually have to contest that - either you claim that it's outright unverifiable and unsalvageable, which would warrant deletion, or you don't. The "I don't know, it seems fishy" stance is a poor reason for deletion. But, you're actually missing how the tradition is anything but solely local (Croatian), rather it's spread across continental Europe - notice how numerous editors added the local names from Portugal to Ukraine. If you examine the article history you'll notice how it includes content from an earlier article about pig slaughter in traditional American hog pens, too. In any case, the article already speaks in no uncertain terms about the general agricultural practice of pig slaughter, that section is placed first, and there's nothing apparently wrong with it. You could claim that explaining the tradition in detail puts |undue weight on the topic, but that again isn't cause for deletion, instead it can be a reason for splitting the article (as it was once before). The technical distinction between the sole act of slaughter and the other relevant actions it is not important enough to warrant removing the whole context - the slaughter does not happen as a standalone notable act that would warrant its own article, whereas the whole process named after it does. And finally, I think your exceedingly negative opinion about pictures that seem perfectly relevant to pig slaughter betrays a |negative bias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:UNDUE||WP:IDL)