Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do not feed the animals


 * 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 open a discussion on the article's title. Wow, quite an unusual AfD. The consensus seems to be that, title aside, the content of this article is notable. That is demonstrated by sources in the article, as pointed out by a number of editors here. The majority of the arguments for deletion are based on the view that 'do not feed the animals' as a phrase is not notable. Though relevant to this discussion, that does not effect the notability of the article's contents. However, it has been convincingly argued that the phrase itself is not notable (with useful reference to WP:WORDISSUBJECT); this point has been conceded by most of those who have argued to keep the article. The result therefore is that, while the contents of the article probably are notable, the subject as defined by the title is not. This seems to be caused by a mismatch between the article's title and contents. Thus, the consensus seems to be that the article should be kept, because the contents is notable, but the title should be changed. Therefore, I will close this debate as keep, but open a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the article's title. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not feed the animals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable; merely a common phrase Dan Griscom (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept is notable, being discussed in detail in numerous sources, as may be seen from the search links above. Warden (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: By "the concept", do you mean the phrase as a phrase, which the first and fourth paragraphs refer to, or the notion of zoos and parks forbidding visitors to feed animals, which the second and third paragraphs treat. I don't claim that either of those ideas is or is not notable, just that they are different things, which the current article kind of blurs. Cnilep (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is interested in the phrase qua phrase — its exact construction and grammar. It is the message which matters and this can be expressed in other words or just a symbolic sign.  I especially like this one :) Warden (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There should be an article on the effects of humans feeding wildlife, which this phrase could properly redirect to. I couldn't find one at current.  For this to stay an article as it is started, it would need to be demonstrated there is a pop cultural significance w/o resorting to original research - i.e. sources talking about the pop cultural aspect would be needed, not just sources used to document examples of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, it looks like ThaddeusB beat me to the punch. I came back after researching the policy to see the above comment. I agree 100% as it falls under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. What needs to happen here is that the term must be shown to be more than just a term. The social influence of the term should be established as just because it exists as a term does not make it notable. I did a quick search but could not find the sources talking about significance of the term. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible Keep The topic seems to be as notable, or more, than lots of expressions with articles here.  Right now there are no sources and it's mainly one person's musings.  But that could be changed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are sources now. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - FoolMeOnce2Times's reference to WP:WORDISSUBJECT clarifies my objection to the article. The fact that "Do not feed the animals" has been said or written often does not make it merit an article; there needs to be something about the phrase itself which is notable. As such, references which merely use the phrase don't justify the article; only references which discuss the phrase as an entity unto itself can make that case. In reference to Kitfoxxe's comment that the topic "seems to be as notable, or more, than lots of expressions with articles here", I don't see that as a justification; if other articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia, then we should get them deleted as well. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The particular words or phrase are not the topic here. The topic is the prohibition or discouragement of animal feeding in common contexts such as zoos and parks.  There are plenty of reasons for this which are discussed in detail in sources.  For example, here's a book about feeding zoo animals and this includes details of the difficulty of getting visitors to stop providing food too. Warden (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the fact that it's a common and yet commonly ignored "good idea" makes it notable. Should we have articles on Obey the speed limit? Wear a hat in the sun? Contribute to Wikipedia? Don't run with scissors? Only if the article can include "information on the social or historical significance of the term" (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT) does it become WP-worthy. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For those other articles, see speed limit; sun hat; Wikipedia community and running with scissors. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so the exact phrase or title of a topic is unimportant.  What matters is the underlying concept and we have one here. Warden (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning toward a weak keep. As ThaddeusB, FoolMeOnce2Times, and Warden seem to suggest, the concepts of controlling the feeding of wild or domestic animals seems article-worthy, notwithstanding the fact that, as Dan Griscom and Warden each point out, this precise phrase is probably not. I don't find discussion of control of feeding at animal husbandry, consumer-resource systems, or food web. If there is an article, I should think that it would relate to zoology, agriculture, or ecology rather than philology. Cnilep (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see your argument applying to an article titled The Feeding of Animals, with a section on when and what you shouldn't feed them (I think said article would be non-notable for other reasons). Or perhaps this should become a subsection of Zoo, without the stress on the precise phrase (I'd actually support that). But that's not what this article is: it's an article about a specific phrase and its importance. And I don't think the specific phrase is notable. (BTW: I'm going to taper off my comments; this can't be a one-man deletion campaign, and I have yet to see much support from other editors.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. While an article like, for example, Impact of feeding on wildlife would be good, this is more of an advice column than an encyclopedia entry. It's also pretty hard for me to picture a way that you could fit a topic like that into an article with such an idiosyncratic title. Hermione is a dude (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been rewritten. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I've been trying to find a redirect target, and failing, so this is the next best option. I don't feel this phrase itself meets WP:N, merely the concept - and an article about the concept shouldn't be tied to this specific phrase. When it is found or made, though, a redirect would be appropriate. Ansh666 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, move any appropriate content on the concept per Dan's suggestion below, although I'd support the creation of a centralized article at a different name. Ansh666 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This already is the centralised article, so all it needs is a better name. I must admit, though, that I can't think of one. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - interesting and possibly notable, as has been suggested. The article needs a lot of work.  Can anyone userfy it? Bearian (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to make more explicit the proposal I floated above. How about we merge the interesting parts of this article into Zoo (the section already exists) and Wildlife management (there's a bullet on "Custodial management", but this article's content could be part of an upgraded section). That would preserve the knowledge and content, while avoiding the problem that the presumed topic of this article, the phrase Do not feed the animals, itself isn't notable. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea - I amended my statement above accordingly. Ansh666 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep with possible title change. The phrase isn't notable, but the concept of not feeding animals certainly is, as reflected by the sources in the article (and lots more material could clearly be added). Since the concept relates to zoos, national parks, and wildlife generally, a standalone article avoids duplication of the content in Zoo and Wildlife management. Those articles should link to here. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I notice that not liking the current article title seems to be the main deletion argument. If anyone can think of a better title for the concept, the best thing to do is probably to start a move request on the article talk page. -- 202.124.89.39 (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept is certainly notable as per the references in the article currently. Someone suggested merging to a zoo subsection above, but the concept applies both to zoos and wildlife parks (and even suburban and rural back yards) . The title is informal and prescriptive, but a google news search reveals many reliable sources entitling the topic exactly the same way. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think people are missing an important distinction. The information contained in the article is indeed interesting and useful, and deserves a home in Wikipedia (I've suggested one option above). The problem is the article's topic, which is the phrase "Do not feed the animals". See WP:WORDISSUBJECT: when a word or phrase is the topic of an article, it must in and of itself pass Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. None of the article's references talk about "Do not feed the animals" as an interesting phrase: they just talk about bystanders not feeding animals. That's why I raised the specter of articles on Obey the speed limit, Wear a hat in the sun, and Contribute to Wikipedia: each of these articles clearly could contain important information, but just as clearly should not be in Wikipedia because their topics (the phrases themselves) aren't in and of themselves notable. (Someone raised the counterexamples of speed limit, sun hat and Wikipedia community, but none of these articles are about a specific phrase, so the distinction was clearly missed.) My conclusion: if the phrase "Do not feed the animals" can be documented as an important phrase unto itself, or the article can be moved to another phrase where this could be done, then we should keep the article. If not, we should preserve the useful information elsewhere and delete the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not in fact about the phrase qua phrase, but about the (notable) topic of not feeding animals, so your critique doesn't apply. The present article could perhaps use a title change, but no better title has been suggested, and there is half-hearted support for the existing one. In any case, we don't delete articles simply because the title could be improved. And there is no possibility of confusion between this article and an article about the phrase qua phrase, since everyone agrees that there should be no article about the phrase qua phrase. -- 202.124.73.1 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of this article is "Do not feed the animals" is an exhortation reflecting a policy of not feeding animals which might be harmed by the feeding. To me, this states clearly that this article is about the phrase "Do not feed the animals". If the article is not about this phrase, then we must change the first sentence to state the real topic, and change the title to correspond to the new topic (although I have yet to see an alternative title that would encompass a notable topic). If this article is about this phrase, then we need to follow WP:WORDISSUBJECT and document the notability of the phrase "Do not feed the animals" with suitable references. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And let me be clear: I don't think either of these approaches will result in an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no question that the not-feeding of animals in zoos and parks is notable; the overwhelming weight of sources settles that. Everything else is cleanup. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. This phrase is not. Ansh666 01:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the phrase. Nobody wants an article about the phrase. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the title. The title is the phrase. Therefore, the article is about the phrase. You're advocating deletion, not keeping the article. Ansh666 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the content of the article. A number of people have indicated that the title could be improved. And no, I !voted "keep" above. I find your argument bizarre. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC) to
 * You might want to look at WP:Naming, then. Like below, I'm leaving. Ansh666 02:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that temperatures (mine included) are getting a bit high here, and more discussion isn't likely to change the participants' opinions (mine included). We're two days from the week anniversary of the re-listing; I'm going to stop commenting and wait for the closing administrator to sort it out, hopefully with a clear explanation of his/her reasoning (including if the article is again re-listed). Thanks for everyone's contribution. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Additional !votes (going either way) are of course still welcome. However, it's worth noting WP:LOUSYTITLE and WP:HEY. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep with a view to merging, or restructuring and retitling. The amateur/casual/recreational feeding of animals is undoubtedly a notable topic.  It is much more than just signs.  It is a subject for historic domestication of current pet animals, pigeons nuisance in cities, and inviting bears to see humans as food.  We should cover it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I've already !voted to keep above even with the current title, but in the spirit of comity, might I suggest a different one: Artificial feeding of wildlife? As a note, our definition of wildlife encompasses zoo animals as they are not domesticated. The term "artificial feeding" is used by people in the relevant fields, see, e.g., and is even in the article a couple times already. The "of wildlife" is needed to distinguish the animal case from the more commonly referenced human case, see, e.g., . I still think that the current title should remain as a redirect as a more common search term. This is more properly posed as a move suggestion on the article's talk page, but let's not let a rule get in the way of improvement. Ignore all rules 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable alternate title, but article moves during the AfD process are generally not a good idea (WP:Don't move articles at AfD), so lets have the move discussion later. Thanks for working on improving the article, though! -- 202.124.89.16 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion works for me and back at you for the good WP:HEY work. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as one of those core articles that belong in Wikipedia Clearly, by the sheer number and depth of potential citations, this is a notable phrase.  Per SmokeyJoe, this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia ought to cover. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Zoo, perhaps in a Section called "Typical policies" or something like that. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's not just about zoos. 86.150.211.181 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to another title and restructure, or merge into zoo per Willstro. I admit I've kicked around writing a "How's my driving?" article for something like 5 years now, but now that I see this and think on it, the better choice might be to place the article at a broader title. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But the article covers national parks and backyards as well as zoos. And a move discussion can certainly be held later. -- 203.171.197.20 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And what kind of restructure do you think is needed? -- 202.124.88.7 (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.