Deletion of Animal transportation

Comment: but only because I don't want to simply vote keep for something that really needs to be low it up and start over|completely reworked from the ground up. Wikidan61 puts it well. The article is currently structured as a species-by-species |how-to guide (with -- heehee -- 4 species...we're http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127 .00004% of the way there guys, keep going!). It needs to be reworked from the ground up to resemble the flawed but nonetheless completely superior Livestock transportation article, which at least presents an attempt at an encyclopedic history. I'd actually be interested in reading an article on the history of animal transportation, but an article following an "okay, here is how you transport a llama, a dingo, and a koala" structure is simply not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:NOTHOWTO)

Comment: but greatly expand. The article covers 3 animals. That's woefully short of the probably dozens that could be covered in detail. Off the top of my head I would think we could cover giraffes in some detail, especially given the experience in Melbourne, Australia, where they need to temporarily cut down tram lines to allow tall transportation crates to be moved about. There are whole documentaries covering the movement of sharks and rays to aquariums in other countries as there are films dedicated to the transport of killer whales. The transportation of kangaroos (also Australia) has been a matter of ongoing media attention given it presents an alternative to culling them. I've also seen documentaries about the transportation of polar bears away from residential areas in Alaska to prevent interaction with humans which I'm sure have been backed up with newspaper coverage and probably some academic study to boot. Obviously the transportation of specific animals shouldn't be split off to create individual articles but a single article with many examples and short summaries should be fine. The trick will be to keep each section about the same length so as not to create  issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: or at least low it up and start over.  An encyclopedia should not be a place for a collection of sections on "how to transport this animal" and "how to transport that animal", even if such topics are well sourced.  |Wikipedia is not a how to guide.  The livestock transportation article appears more centered on the industry and laws surrounding this topic; this article should parallel that one, but with regard to the transport of wild or endangered animals.  As it stands now, it covers tapirs, goats and seal (animal)|seals, all of which could technically be considered livestock and fall under the cover of livestock transportation.  As such, this article is an unneeded |content fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:NOTHOWTO||WP:FORK)

Comment: per . See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal Transportation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat Transportation
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: Per GBooks searches and reviews, the topic passes the threshold of , and is absolutely not a hoax. While the article Livestock transportation exists, not all animals are classified as livestock
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Animal transportation is a notable topic.  For example, the ''Animal Transportation Act'' was passed in 1906.  And today there is an ''http://www.animaltransportationassociation.org/ Animal Transportation Association'' which holds its annual conference in The Hague next year.  ''Livestock'' is not a satisfactory synonym because those are just domesticated animals and we transport wild animals too.  If someone seems to be playing silly buggers with the topic, then the correct move is to edit the article to contain better content per |policy.  If that editor should disrupt such improvement then deal with the editor, not the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: That animal transportation is a notable topic with ample reliable sources is beyond all doubt.  Any problems with the existing article (such as an overreliance on details or trivia) should be fixed through editing rather than deletion.  Likewise any concerns with the original author's behaviour should be raised at the appropriate venues; we don't delete articles ''solely'' on the basis that they were created by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seal Boxer|sockpuppets or |for disruptive purposes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: am I allowed to ly remove everything and leave it as a one-line stub, or should that wait until the discussion is over? I personally think that the hoax article shouldn't be left in the history, but I guess people don't care as much as I do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)