Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:43, 16 March 2016

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Animal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Animal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Animal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mention may be made in another article independently. Sandstein 09:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper the westie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet notability. Greek Legend (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only independent coverage I can find is this 8-sentence story from June 2015. The WP:GNG bar must be higher than this. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG. As always, prominence on social media is not notability, and, judging from the lack of sources, this subject is not notable enough for an article. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virgin Frequent Flyer. Dan arndt (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the reason for the redirect Dan arndt? Neither article mentions the other and to me they seem unrelated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: - sorry my bad I meant that a mention could be redirected to Virgin frequent flyer. Dan arndt (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. Although in that case one or two sentences about the dog would have to be merged into that section of the airline's article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking would be the best outcome. Dan arndt (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator and no additional votes for deletion. (NAC) Cavarrone 07:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceable Kingdom (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There really is very little evidence of notability in this one. Sources are primary or unreliable, and it doesn't seem to have been widely released. A couple mentions by very minor film festivals probably don't push this up to notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. while not-for-profit fringe documentaries rarely meet the criteria of WP:NF, we do not expect independent docs to have the same coverage as do mainstream for-profit films. But coverage in such as Sentinal-Record, Plain Dealer, Verdict, Abril (Brazil), multiple books, and slightly less substantial coverage in such as ~~Time-Out~~, Political Media Review, Princeton Environmental Film Festival, Mindful Metropolis show the intent of WP:NF is met. Article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelQSchmidt: A couple of those are very weak evidence, take the "Verdict" cite. The entirety of the reference to the film there is "I have chosen not to show this film, however, and instead to begin the course with a film called “Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home” that has been carefully edited to limit the sorts of images that could cause viewers mental and emotional distress. The film is gentle in its exposure of what happens to animals whose milk, eggs, and flesh are consumed." - there is literally not another word discussing the film. The Plain Dealer's text consists of "an artist friend living on the west side, who is a committed ethical vegan, had me watch 'Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home' which made me realize just how horribly animals are treated before they are slaughtered." - we need more than trivial coverage to reach the general notability guideline, but you've just iven a mix of sites we'd need to debate whether they'd count as reliable sources that have non-trivial coverage with better sites that have trivial coverage, which doesn't move us forwards at all. Now, I have nothing against the film itself (it came up in a review of a few articles) but I am a Wikipedian. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: That you choose to single out that "couple" may be "weak" and quote the text of one is fine, but does nothing to refute the others that are strong... and restating the obvious, I am also a Wikipedian. But as an Admin and Coordinator of Project Film (less obvious), I understand that WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline or policy mandate and weak WP:GNG is GNG none-the-less, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Well, you've proven your point before, so I suppose I do need to check everything, and not just go by the ones I did check so far.

I do think you should check your sources a bit better. [1] is not going to convince people. Including weak sources makes me a lot more suspicious by the time I come to the other sources. Of the sources, the best are [2] and [3]. I'd rather they weren't sourced to the movie company's website, but they're decently long writeups that at least look professional. I don't know much about the newspapers they're from, and them being on the movie's website is a downside. The books are... hard to evaluate, as you have to first decide if the book's a reliable source, then figure out what it says about the movie. I don't think we have a smoking gun yet, but I'm leaning towards WP:AGF. The article doesn't have any other issues besides notability being in question, can we do anything to settle that point firmly? The requirement's non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two major newspapers or review sites with decent coverage would be more than ample. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offered as many as could be quickly found, and even the least of them is suitable under WP:V for verifying simple facts. And it must be remembered that WP:SIGCOV instructs that sources need not be only about a topic being sourced in order to support notability. I have struck the ~~Timeout~~ link so let's not get bogged down in old minutae. The the filmmakers chose to archive the lengthy articles Connections Magazine and The Sentinel-Record is wonderfully helpful to us under WP:NTEMP... and note: The Sentinel-Record has it's own archive of that page for registrants... the filmmakers just made it easier. Added, we have lengthy reviews in Political Media Review and DVD Talk. Is this the same level of earth-shattering coverage as some big-studio for-profit blockbuster-film? No. Is it enough for us here in Wikipedia according to WP:NF? Yes. We do not need dozens. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I think we've reached the level where we can move forwards with confidence about notability, particularly as there's no other issues. Withdraw. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 12:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 12:32, 28 December 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gary Richter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally none of the sources used actually say anything about why the good doctor is notable. Fails WP:GNG Ireneshih (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are nearly all namechecks, although he did win this one contest of dubious distinction. However, I don't see any indepth information about him anywhere, only this contest (and I can find more info about the contest than about him). It's pretty much a wp:blp1e. LaMona (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability, and essentially a promotional article, even if not so blatant as to justify speedy deletion, sourced largely to promotional pages. Even the claim that he won the title "America's Favorite Veterinarian" does not stand up to examination: because of controversy, the contest was called off, and the title given to all the finalists. (Also, it is doubtful that the title would in any case be an indication of significance: the contest appears to be a promotional event by an organisation without evident importance.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not establish notability. Article seems to be promotional. Delta13C (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems solidly in favor of deletion on the grounds that the content in question is not sufficiently discriminate or encyclopedic as presented. The "keep" votes have easily demonstrated that bird stamps are notable as a topic, but do not, in my judgement, directly address many of the concerns regarding these lists in particular. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds on stamps of Bophuthatswana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a nomination of all 51 articles in Category:Lists of birds on stamps. Yes, stamps have an image, of birds or reptiles or churches or painters or ... and yes, people collect stamps by topic (or country or year or ...), just like they collect cigar wrappers by topic, or figurines of owls, or ... It's a smart commercial move by the stamp issuing offices. But they aren't encyclopedic articles, they are one of countless possibilities of listing characteristics of stamps. It doesn't convey any necessary information on the birds or on (in this case) Bophuthatswana, and a rather random piece of information on the stamps of the country.

These lists are unsourced or only reference the general stamp catalogues (which are not topically sorted). An article like List of birds on stamps of Finland is generally useless.

Also nominated:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree these are not encyclopedic and if allowed to proliferate offer endless permutations, all similarly useless. There is already a parallel "Fish on the stamps of xxxxx" which could be included. This was discussed at the Philately Project. If I remember correctly the consensus was that "People on the stamps of XXXX" was OK as those people are normally highly connected to the country of origin of the stamp, but opinion was divided on the other "on the stamps of" lists. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on all counts. I haven't included the "Fish" lists or the lone "Bonsai" list to keep this somewhat controllable. If consensus here is for delete, I plan on nominating the other similar lists as well. And I agree that the "people" lists should either be left alone or considered separately, as they do provide information on the people and the country (i.e. which people are considered notable in which country, period, ...) which is absent or much less prominent on the animal lists. Fram (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For reference, I think the discussion you're referring to is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philately/Archive_6#Notability_of_topical_lists after several of these lists were PROD'ed in 2010. -- R45 ^talk! 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unnecessary Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I disagree with them being "pointless", not one of these lists has any references and most have been around for 10 years with nothing to verify the information. They all could be revamped and become Featured Lists at some point in the future, but right now, they show no levels of notability, no third-party coverage and no sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "totally unnecessary" is not a reason to delete things on wikipedia - almost every list could be said to be useless or unnecessary by someone who doesn't care about the information it contains. There is a concern about the lack of references, that's a fair comment. However it is not "unencyclopedic" to include detailed information in a list that you are not interested in. There are plenty of lists that other uninterested editors would find completely unnecessary. That is a quality statement and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete a page. JMWt (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of number-one records on a chart groups a major characteristic of certain records (same genre, period and level of success) and an essential characteristic of the chart. A list of birds on stamps of one country list a completely unimportant characteristic of a bird (it doesn't indicate anything about the bird (except that one national or quasi-national institution thought it a good commercial idea to picture it), a completely unimportant characteristic of the country, and a minor element of the stamps of one country (leaving you with a too narrowly defined intersection of characteristics to be a good list subject). There is little or no relation between the stamps on one of these lists (which bird is pictured in 1984 has little influence on which one is pictured in 2002) and no relation between the different lists (one country will hardly care which bird is pictured on stamps from other countries). In total, they are a collection of loosely related information grouped on non-defining characteristics. I gave the Finland example as one egregiously useless list: but being useless was not my reason to nominate these, being rather random and endless was. That they are mostly unsourced and unmaintained are additional but in themselves not sufficient reasons to delete them. Fram (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone had done an article (or even a list) about the Birds of Finland on the stamps of Finland, now that might have been OK, but as Fram indicated, there is not a shred of analysis, discrimination, or wider significance in these lists. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these lists are a convenient reference or serve as a good directory for philatelists, but they serve no encyclopedic purpose. I think an alternative outlet devoted to stamp collecting would be more appropriate. I googled "stamp collecting wiki", and the first non-Wikipedia entry I came up with was http://stampcollecting.wikia.com/wiki/Stamp_Collecting_Wiki; I suggest we contact them, give them an opportunity to copy all of these lists across to their wiki if they so desire, then delete. Aspirex (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Aspirex, this stuff does not belong to Wikipedia, but rather to some fringe Wikia. They may have these, if they wish to. Ceosad (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All these articles seem to have been created in 2005, by User:JPPINTO a contributor who only seems to have only made about 700 edits, in total, most of them in 2005, and who hasn't contributed since 2010. While the articles have all had dozens of edits, since then, they seem to have all been cosmetic edits, to the metadata.
I think that it would have been more appropriate to have used 51 {{prod}}s. This AFD is a waste of time.
I think JMWt made an important point. The problem with these articles is not their topic. People do write about postage stamp design. If there were good references on stamps with bird designs there would be no problem with the topic of these articles.
It is quite possible, likely, in fact, that newbie JPPINTO, the articles' creator, had access to reliable references, back in 2005. Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to postage stamp design. Keep revision history. Geo Swan (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that that article has no information whatsoever on any of the above 51 lists, and would be overwhelmed if you added info on these (and on the 30 fish lists, and ...), it makes no sense to redirect them. It is better to make it obvious for a hypothetical reader that we have no information on a subject, than to redirect them to an article which tells them nothing about their search item. Fram (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's a bit hard to reconcile "this AFD is a waste of time, ProD would have been better" with "do not delete, redirect with history preserved" which would never have been the result of 51 prods anyway. Fram (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the deletionists are missing some important points about these lists. Topical stamps are a very popular form of stamp collecting so much so that there is a specific Bird Stamp Society as well as about 50 specialised study units of the American Topical Association. Many countries issue stamps illustrating their native and sometimes foreign flora and fauna, such as Definitive postage stamps of Ireland#Birds that are important issues for those countries more so when they are definitive stamps but adding such list would not enhance such article which is why lists such as those for deletion are created. An alternative to deletion would be to merge the lists into the Postage stamps and postal history of ... articles such as List of birds on stamps of India into Postage stamps and postal history of India perhaps even in a collapsed form to avoid overwhelming those articles where they already exist.

As an encyclopaedia we are a great resource for stamp collectors and can do much more in that regards so such list may not seem so important to some as specific stamp articles but neither are they a dictionary. In the previous discussion on topical stamp lists, Mike Cline and Stan made some very good points about such lists that you should probably consider before a final decision; there was no agreement to delete them then and I see no good reason to delete them now either. The many deletionists might spend some more time finding the many less significant lists that abound Wikipedia instead. ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, the tables are beautiful, and I can see they could be a useful resource to experts in stamps -- if they know they can trust the information. But the tables are completely without documentation.
  JPPINTO may have been one of the world's experts, on stamps. There are wikis where this information would be welcome, even though it is completely without substantiation. In 2005, when JPPINTO added this information, standards were lower, but today, it requires references.
  Volunteering information on the wikipedia can be frustrating for genuine subject field experts. Our rules don't let them rely on their hard won knowledge. They have to rely on authoritative references, same as everyone else.
  If you are a stamp expert, and you think you can find WP:Verifiable WP:Reliable sources, then I suggest you request userification, to give you enough time to add the references the articles need. In my opinion they need some introductory text, to add context, to those of us who are not stamp experts.
  If you commit yourself to bringing the articles up to today's standards, I'll change my opinion here to userify for improvement. And, I'll offer my opinion as to whether they are ready to be restored to article space, once they have references, and text to provide context to non-stamp collectors. Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The value of these lists, plus the difficulty of constructing and then maintaining them accurately, is one of the motivations behind my long-term effort to generate them automatically; this bird list at stampdata.com shows the current state of the work (note the WP links, which is part of the mechanism to ensure name accuracy). Another possibility, if these lists' existence is hurtful to people's eyes, is Wikibooks, which already has a good chunk of general catalog, and could certainly just justify adding topical lists. Stan (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a second, your table uses information from these tables, combined with references to http://colnect.com, which has a wiki of its own, with detailed entries like this one on the Abyssinian Ground Hornbill? Where did the detailed information at colnect come from?
1. Where are the references used to construct the detailed entries at colnect? Have you, or other stamp contributors, considered bringing these articles up to date by citing those references?
2. Have you considered porting these tables to the colnect wiki? JPPINTO contributed it under a free license. People at the colnect wiki are completely free to re-use that table, so long as they acknowledge the original author(s). Under US law lists of facts aren't protected by copyright. This list may meet the criteria for being considered a list of facts not protected by copyright. Geo Swan (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. List of birds on stamps of Afghanistan has four columns for stamp catalogues, that lists "Scott", "Yvert", "Mitchell", ""Sta. & Gib." Maybe you stamp experts can instantly recognize what these columns are for, and what the numbers in these columns mean. But these articles should be comprehensible to general readers, who aren't stamp experts. Could you fix this table, so a reader could understand these columns? Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is a little confusion, both stampdata and colnect have their own database, each independently developed, each with a completely different internal structure, and both independent of JPPINTO's tables (which were probably generated from a private database - many collectors have developed their own). All the databases typically confine themselves to agreed-upon facts, gathered from existing catalogs or authoritative websites such as the UPU. Personally I've been putting my time into coding and database massaging for stampdata.com, so as to get to a point where Wiki{pedia,books} could have lists based on an authoritative online source, but it's a big undertaking, has sucked up all my former Wikipedia time. In the meantime, the existing lists are not great, but not harmful either. Stan (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Cline: in a 2010 discussion, referred to above, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 6#Notability of topical lists, you wrote:
1. In the catalog columns, add an in-line citation to each catalog on the header line. No need to source each entry to a specific page, just each column to a specific catalog.
2. Add a legend at the top to explain the possible entries in the column type. I assume NOR means Normal but who knows. A legend, common to every topical list would be a big improvement.
3. Strengthen the lead-in to say a bit more in summary about the topic in the context of the country. Leace no doubt as to the inclusion criteria. Source those comments.
I agree that these were excellent points, just what these lists need. Do you know how much progress those interested in stamps have made to follow your 2010 advice? Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow many philately related articles so I can't say one way or the other.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: On two grounds. 1) I object to these mass deletions because of the strong bias it gives to delete votes!. One who votes! Delete merely has to generalize without any specific evidence of non-notability on any given entry. Whereas a Keep vote! is forced to either provide generalized evidence of notability which can be typically dismissed or is forced to provide entry by entry specifics. 2) Neither the nom or those voting! delete have provided valid rationale for deletion. Notability of lists is clearly spelled out in WP:NOTESAL a guideline that took a lot of work to achieve consensus on back in the day. The relevant portion of WP:NOTESAL is: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable,…
Without any doubt, the topics of these lists have been discussed as a group in American Topic Association (a national philatelic organization) publications and most likely discussed as a group in country and region specific philatelic publications or in Fédération Internationale de Philatélie Thematic Philately Commission publications. As a philatelist of some 60 years and once active in the highest venues of national and international philately as an exhibitor, I can say without any doubt, that most if not all of these lists meet the requirement of WP:NOTESAL and should not be deleted but improved. –Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked WP:NOTESAL, which refers to WP:Stand-alone lists, which says:

Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.

These lists aren't verifiable, as they cite no references. If you, or other contributors knowledgeable about stamps, can provide references, and some explanatory text, then I would change my !vote, and I believe some others who weighed in here would too.

If you need time to dig up the references I suggest you request userification, to give you that time. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geo - You miss my point completely. I contend these lists are notable IAW WP:NOTESAL and it is highly probable that reliable sources exist to support that notability. The fact that those sources are not listed is not a valid reason for deletion. If is was then the 218,603 articles in this category Category:Articles lacking sources would be ripe for deletion as well. AFD is not WP:Cleanup. Enough said. Time for someone else to decide. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too suspected that it is highly probable that reliable sources exist that cover stamps with images of birds, of ships, of politicians, of writers and artists. When JPPINTO drafted these tables, in 2005, the wikipedia had far far looser standards for article inclusion, and far far looser standards for how articles should be referenced. In 2005 we hadn't yet begun to use <ref name=x></ref> tags and {{cite}} templates.
The wikipedia still includes lots of articles from 2005, that have been updated, so they measure up to the reference expectations of today. In spite of suspecting references existed, seeing that no one had made any effort to provide those references, during the last ten years, made me suspect no one would provide those references during the next ten years.
If you are asking for the lists to be kept because reliable sources probably exist, that it a non-starter.
If you are asking for the lists to be kept, because stamps fans will start to work through these lists, and will gradually make sure they all explicitly cite references -- sorry, I think that is problematic too. That is why I suggested the lists be (temporarily) moved from article space, to be restored when they do measure up to our current referencing standards.
Um, are you suggesting the lists don't need explicit references? Geo Swan (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list cite 1-4 references per stamp. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

- Really? Actually, many of them don't, and the references that are there (general stamp catalogues) say nothing about the list subject. You can use the same sources to create "list of stamps of Manama with perforation 13 1/2 by 14" or "list of stamps of Danzig with a crown watermark" and so on. Taking a catalogue and making your own selection from it based on whatever criteria you prefer is not a reason to keep a list as begin "sourced". You need sources about the list subject, showing that "birds on stamps of Ifni" is a notable subject, not that you can find them among all other stamps in catalogues which are not even ordered by topic but by country, type, and date of emission. Which you are all quite aware of, but why give a policy based reason? Fram (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to the Draft space, to have the changes suggested by @Mike Cline: in 2010 made to them. Those with expertise in stamps say reliable sources exist, and AGF, I trust them. Restoration to article space should wait for referencing to measure up to today's expectations. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess these could be shoved in one article but quite honestly I don't have time for that and I imagine no one else does either, Sourcing these individually would be next to none impossible and so the only best outcome here to delete these as they all fail GNG, (Had this been 5 or 6 articles I wouldn't mind moving to userspace/draft but moving 50 odd individually is just creating unnecessary work and if the creator wants these saved they can either move them themselves or go to WP:UNDELETE. –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re sources: Lack of sources is not a reason to delete and anyone with access to a set of hard copy stamp catalogues, Scott or Stanley Gibbons, or even an online database like Colnect.com could easily source these lists. They just need some time and motivation which obviously none of the deletionists have. I have sourced each stamp, except for one, in the List of birds on stamps of India and was able to do so by mostly using the UPUs WADP Numbering System has most, if not all, stamps issued since 2002 and can definitely be considered a reliable source. ww2censor (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone of these lists could be sourced in part from:
Theme Birds on Stamps by Kjell Scharning

Reference Books Stanley Gibbons Collect Birds on Stamps 2003

ATA CHECKLISTS—A MEMBER-TO-MEMBER SERVICE—TOPICAL LISTING

ATA Topicals Online]

Birds of the world on Postage Stamps

Wildlife of Pakistan Bird Stamps] (lots more like this)

----Mike Cline (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge I observed this nomination at the outset but the selection of topics seemed too bottom-up and tiresome, when a top-down approach might be more sensible. So, I started the page bird stamp and was wondering whether anyone would notice (it doesn't seem so). The topic seems notable at that level as sources include:

Bleeker, Sonia (1966), The Golden Book of Bird Stamps
Daly, Kathleen (1955), Bird Stamps
Eriksen, Hanne; Eriksen, Jens (1996), Collect Birds on Stamps, Stanley Gibbons, ISBN 9780852594087
Esten, Sidney (1954), Birds of the World on Stamps, American Topical Association
Bird Stamps of All Countries with a Natural History of Each Bird, Grosset & Dunlap, 1935
The World of Birds on Stamps, Hayes, 1975
Jackson, Christine (1978), Collecting Bird Stamps, ISBN 0854931260
Koeppel, Dan (2006), To See Every Bird on Earth: A Father, a Son, and a Lifelong Obsession, Penguin, ISBN 9781440627033
Lant, Hugh (1975), Bird Stamps of the World Check-List, ISBN 0950476803
Collect Birds on Stamps, Stanley Gibbons, 2002, ISBN 9780852595329

But the lists we have here all seem to be for minor countries. Where are the major countries like the UK, for example? I suggest merging this up into a higher page such as list of bird stamps as an alternative to deletion. If the philately project then gets this topic area fleshed out more fully, the country-level pages can be opened up again as needed. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here through an article alert for List of birds on stamps of Croatia. I knew nothing about birds on stamps before I read this list, and after reading the list and clicking through the links, I think it's fair to say that I still know nothing about the subject. The list is formatted as some sort of a specialized philatelic topic, with type, value and catalogue columns that I basically can't read. But they also then combine excessive biological classification terms - who exactly really cares if it was Linnaeus that first identified that bird in 1758, and why does the taxonomy matter in the context of stamps, when we can just link the bird article instead? In general, the list doesn't even seem to attempt to answer the question why? Why was a stamp released in '93 in Croatia with the white-tailed eagle on it? Usually when I come across this sort of information in general-purpose media (such as encyclopedias), it tells me things like "someone wanted to commemorate this specific item because it relates to them for reasons x and y". What is the encyclopedic value of this list when it doesn't convey this basic piece of information? The suggestion to move to a wikia and delete seems best, for this article at least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it a joke? Such lists do not belong to Wikipedia. Zezen (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge all into list of bird stamps that's currently a redirect to Bird stamp, but I think it could reasonably exist as a stand-alone list which incorporates all the content of these various smaller lists. The problem is, according to Bird stamp, there's 10,000 of them. It's unlikely we would list all but a small fraction of them, and I don't know what the inclusion criteria would be. If we merged these into a big master list, we would have to address the issue raised by Joy that much of the data is cryptic. There would need to be some introductory material which explained the type, catalog, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I agree with Joy that these lists lack any encyclopedic value and should move to some specialised wikia, if they don't already exist (catawiki anyone?). On a sidenote, I am slightly annoyed by the consistently incorrect spelling of the "Mitchell" catalogue in these lists, which should be "Michel". - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think Bird stamp has potential to be a really nice article about the subject, but the individual lists don't really tell us anything. If they were solidly sourced and said something about the stamps, rather than just a list, they might be appropriate. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Keepper WW2censor. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see where many of those opposing this deletion are coming from, but topical collecting fixating on certain objects is simply too specific for Wikipedia. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same opinionated arguments were made against Bibliographies in the 2008-09 timeframe--they were indiscriminate, they weren't encyclopedic, they were useful, yada, yada. At the time there were only about 50 in the encyclopedia but reason won the day and WP:NOTESAL eventually became the guiding precept for lists of all kinds. Today we have hundreds of useful bibliographies for readers to review and use on all manner of subjects.--Mike Cline (talk)

Keep This oddly enough seems like the classic encyclopedia subject. FYI - There are even exclusive duck stamps and duck with retriever dog stamps! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 05:28, 28 November 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital contractural arachnodactyly in cattle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not worthy of an article separate from congenital contractural arachnodactyly, nor is it worth merging the articles, since content appears to be borderline copyvio (see article talk). Brycehughes (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 November 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals at the Memphis Zoo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No evidence of any notability for this list (the Zoo itself obviously is notable). Every zoo has a number of animals, there doesn't seem to be anything exceptional or notable about this one. Fram (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's simply no independent notability here. Zoos are notable. Their major exhibits are worthy of mention. But there are simply no reliable third-party sources that provide attention to zoo animal lists in this manner. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:LISTN. This is simply trivia. Zoo collections change over time: a single external link to the zoo website should suffice for those seeking more info. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals at Chester Zoo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals at the Minnesota Zoo for similar rationale. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other zoo AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 23 October 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And renamed (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring anthropomorphic insects

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, orphaned article with WP:NOTE concerns since 2012. I PRODed this article not realizing that another user had already done so not too long ago, making this article inelegible for deletion under WP:PROD. My concerns still stand, and since the article hasn't been improved since 2012, I doubt it will be anytime soon. I personally do not think this list is notable or adds anything of particular value to the project at this time. Therefore I recommend that it be deleted. Mww113 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not policy; it's just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring anthromorphic insects. I nominated it but withdrew due to no support to delete. I had planned to convert it to List of films featuring insects but never got around to it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find coverage of the topic in sources such as the Encyclopedia of Insects and Encyclopedia of Film Themes, Settings and Series. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second source looks like a good one! But do you think it would be best to make this into List of films featuring insects? Not all of these are anthropomorphic insects. Also, I cannot view anything from your first source. Can you share what it is stated in the source, or take a screenshot? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the link for the first source to go to a better page but Google Books is not reliable in what it shows and it's not good to use it to breach copyright. The sources generally cover the wider topic of insects in movies and so I agree that expansion would be sensible. See Films about insects. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the link! That's definitely a good source too. It's high time I got around to making this list. Agree about leveraging that category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sourcing concerns? Does one of you plan to add sources to the article? And I'm still not convinced that the list should exist as it does now. Maybe list of films with insects would make more sense, but it it's current form I really don't see a compelling reason to list off such a specific thing. Who's going to be searching for films that contain anthropomorphic insects? They may be looking for information about anthropomorphic insects, but films that contain them? That doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopediatic. Mww113 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "anthropomorphic insects" may not be a thing, but insect (or "bug") movies are. I am seeing quite a few lists in search engine results that could be used. Just need to sift for reliable sources from the results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to List of films featuring insects per Andrew D.'s sources above (plus others I remember finding about films featuring insects in general). If needed, we can include "Description" columns to identify which films of the set have anthropomorphic insects. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and expand per Erik and Andrew. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 02:49, 23 October 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals at the Minnesota Zoo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for this sublist. There are only 6 or so zoos / wildlife centres / similar with their own animal list on Wikipedia, and I'll prod the other ones (unless they have some real claim to notability as a list.) This one survived a prod in 2006, but I see no reason why the list of animals at a zoo would be a notable subject in most cases. Fram (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is cruftacular to the extreme. Is it an WP:ADVERT for the zoo in question? The opening line can belong in the main article - there is no need for this. Although on checking the article, it contradicts this total... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't conceive of any reason why the list of animals at this zoo, or likely any zoo, would have independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LISTN. All zoos have animals, animals in zoos can and do change, and, in my view, lists of these sorts are undue trivia not worth even worth including in zoo articles (no merge or redirect warranted) let alone stand-alone lists. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. The only possible justification for a list like this is if the zoo had unique species or famous named animals. No Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing or Yetis here. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 24 October 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat people and dog people

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this is a notable subject and may fail WP:NEO Gbawden (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article stub was started three days ago; its ample sources have been moved to the Talk Page. Give the article creator a chance to flesh it out and prove notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. There are ample sources on the talk page that demonstrate the notability of this topic. Plus, @McGeddon: explained on my talk page: "Yes, you only actually need two references to meet WP:GNG". At least at AFD there is an opportunity for passersby to hit the edit button and get this article moving forward. :D (I haven't had a chance to because I'm still pooped from working on Cats and the Internet and now i Ihave a Masters of Commerce to worry about... It's *that* time of uni).--Coin945 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Beyond meeting the WP:GNG, there's also "not violating WP:NOT" that needs to be considered in creating articles. I'm not saying that is or isn't a problem here, merely that the nomination is probably more about that side of things if its quoting WP:NOTNEO. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I take a different exception to this article: if 'dog people' and 'cat people' are encyclopedic topics, then they should have their own articles. Lumping them together into one article will probably turn it into a compare-and-contrast essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest delete this article, and recreate dog people and cat people only when there is enough content to bring the article beyond a dictionary defintion – which is essentially what this article is now. Aspirex (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a dicdef is understandable considering the article is a very new stub. It has two lines. But they count - they sum up the topic very succinctly. And there are a tonne of sources in the talk page.I lumped them together because it would be easier to justify the topic's validity before splitting into different articles, and it makes sense because in terms of animal-person it is only ever cat- or dog- person, never horse-person or fish-person. It builds on the duality of cats/dogs in society. At least, thats where my thoughts on this are. But your comments are valid and should be taken into account.--Coin945 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Defines a classic meme within the pet owner world, with room for expansion. And there is too a "horse person" LOL! But not pushing for that article. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing on the article's talk page is sufficient to me to warrant an article. I don't feel like WP:NOTNEO applies, its an established term that has been used for a long time and used by a ton of reliable, third party sources. This isn't some zany word some kid made up on Youtube last week or something, the type of thing NOTNEO is usually trying to prevent. I'm not opposed to splitting it off into 2 separate articles, as Aspirex states, but I think that should be a separate discussion that occur sbased on how things are looking once its been expanded out some (hopefully soon). Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ABF99. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Animal==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pepper_the_westie}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peaceable_Kingdom_(film)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Gary_Richter}}