Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kemonomimi


 * 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. Indiscriminate OR list Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Kemonomimi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An indiscriminate list of characters with animal characteristics without any sources and little context. The list is entirely based on original research with no reliable sources to verify the list's contents. The list has been tagged for over 9 months for having no sources. Note that the main article was transwikied to Wiktionary several months ago. Disputed prod. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. No point in a list of the subject doesn't have an article (and I would argue that makes it a G8). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as per nom and Ten. May, however, be suitable for WikiFur. -kotra (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikifur; delete. Shii (tock) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A Wikipedia list aids in navigation. Notice all the blue links there to other articles?  You do NOT need a damn reference for every single thing there is.  Only something that someone might honestly find questionable.  You could check Google images for the name of any of these characters, and see a picture of them, they clearly part animal.  This is more common sense than original research.   D r e a m Focus  22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the main article, Kemonomimi, I see there wasn't any real discussion.  It just got replaced with a wiki dictionary entry, and the list removed from it, but already here on its own article well before that.  Wondering why the nominator mentioned that at all, it not having any possible relevance to this article.  The nominator for this AFD was the only person trying to delete the main article in an AFD  that ended in snow Keep.  Then without any apparent discussion, it was moved to Wiktionary.  D r e a m Focus  00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kemonomimi There is a category for Kemonomimi. Isn't that about the same as the list of Kemonomimi, only with less information?  Listing exactly which character in the series is kemonomimi is more useful, so the list is better.   D r e a m Focus  00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * DreamFocus has a point -- Keminomimi was [|snowball kept in AfD] back in February, so why is it that we don't have an article for it now? This is, to put it mildly, suspicious. Also, given that scholarly articles on the phenomennon of carlgirls/boys and other theomorphisms in manga & anime can be found, clearly this is a notable subject. Keep this and restore the main article. (Including add back the reference that has, through article splits, ended up on List of catgirls.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I may agree with you about Kemonomimi, but this discussion is about List of Kemonomimi. Even if Kemonomimi existed, I think this list, since it has existed for many months with no sources, and is probably outside of Wikipedia's scope, should not be here. The main subject may warrant an article, but the list probably doesn't. This is why we have specialist wikis like WikiFur. -kotra (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a matter of giving the dog a bad name and hanging him: an attack on an article by removing content, leaving just a definition, and then transwikifying. The simplest solution would be to return Kemonomimi to one article, by restoring the anon's version -- which would make this discussion moot by merging the list. Since the article was never deleted, in the meantime I have restored the version of that article approved almost unanimously at the AfD, as an editorial action, not an admin action. (some cleanup is needed, as there were some apparently good edits in the subsequent history; not knowing the subject, I leave selecting them to those who do. ) But I think I would regard reverting that  AfD closure as vandalism.  DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * History
 * 1) The version that had been stable in format but growing by editing over the year before the AfD was ;
 * 2) the list was then removed from the article by The Farix, leaving
 * 3) Farix then nominated the article from which he had removed the list content for deletion, as
 * 4) The shortened version was SNOW KEPT at the AdD without a single dissenting !vote except his own.
 * 5) The list content was restored at
 * 6) The Farix then  removed the list  content, leaving
 * 7) Jennai then changed the page to a soft link to Wikitonary  at,  with the comment " the page will likely be recreated again otherwise since there is a List of Kemonomimi article)" (this was the edit totally in opposition to the unanimous AfD close, done without discussion on the talk page.
 * 8) an anon then restored the version with a list
 * 9) Jennai reverted him, restoring only a soft redirect at, which is where the version is today.
 * 10) And now the Farix is trying to remove the list as a separate article.


 * I agree with and thank you for that edit and summary. However, we remain with this list article. I am not sure if it should be merged back into Kemonomimi or deleted/transwikied elsewhere. This list strikes me as the sort of unreferenced, indiscriminate collection of subjectively-related articles (or sections of articles, if that, in this case) we try to avoid. -kotra (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to get some sort of consensus here about the entire problem.   DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per WP:LISTS. The list is clearly imperfect and needs references, but it clearly meets verifiability as the articles linked to have references. As for the main article, if you read the AfD i did mention a transwiki possibility, including also in Talk:Kemonomimi. I would prefer an article on it, but there is not enough to make an article. No study links the word kemonomimi with cute mostly human anthropomorphism other than the use of the kanji itself, 獣耳. Therefore we can talk about catgirls and the like, but it is synthesis to say nekomimi is a kemonomimi. We can have lists without articles by the same name - List of stereoscopic video games. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that the articles linked to have references. The verifiability problem is there are no references that say the characters are kemonomimi, either in the list itself or the linked articles. Of the first 10 characters listed, only one mentioned "kemonomimi" in their article, and it wasn't sourced. Unfortunately, this isn't a subject where it's immediately clear to the reader what is kemonomimi and what is not; kemonomimi is not a topic of common knowledge. Verifiability is necessary for inclusion here. -kotra (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as the person who originally prodded the list, and because it is indiscriminate. Whether or not the main article should be kept an article on Wikipedia is beyond the scope of this AfD discussion, but even if kept, a list of kemonomimi characters, either in a separate article or in a section on the main article, is inappropriate. At most, a handful of examples specifically noted as kemonomimi characters by reliable, third-party sources should be listed; anything more encourages indiscriminate additions of more entries and history suggests that there aren't going to be enough interested parties to keep such an indiscriminate list cleaned up and properly sourced (as Farix states in his nom, the list has been tagged for eight months for sources and notability concerns, and in that time nothing has been done towards addressing those issues). 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and have two separate articles. The general class of characters is worth discussing. It appears a notable group of types. Not my subject, but I think such characters have been significant for quite some time in Japanese fiction.   The list is so long, and there is more that might be added in the way of identification for browsing: in particular the particular type of fiction in which each appears, for those who don't immediately recognize the names., that I think it better to keep it separate. And , contra Dinoguy, a list with material limited to that in articles on notable  Wikipedia  subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. A list of all such characters in all known fictions is what would be indiscriminate. That word is used a good deal above, and always wrongly. During the 8 months its been tagged, there seems to have been a great deal of editing and improvement, both additions and subtractions--it  very much seems to be worked on. Contra Kotra, If the character is an animal-like character judged by inspection of the primary source, and is important in the fiction, the primary source for that is sufficient sourcing, just as it is for the description of the character in the first place. If there's any character you think isn't,  challenge that individual one. Obvious I can't defend specific items of content, since I do not know the stories involved. If all the individual ones are successfully challenged as agreed by consensus at the talk p. of the article, then there would be a case for deletion as an empty list. If any of them are valid, it's reason to keep the list. What I see in the history of the article is a lot of reversion, and very little talk p. discussion.     DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that if an editor sees a picture of what they consider an "animal-like character", that's good enough to label it "kemonomimi"? If that is truly all the criteria we need, perhaps we should make some edits to Bugs Bunny or Sonic the Hedgehog (character). I don't think you meant all "animal-like characters", though. The definition is more restrictive than that of course, but the problem is we don't have a reliably sourced, sufficiently detailed, accurate definition to judge what is kemonomimi and what is not. We simply can't look at a picture and say with sufficient authority "this is kemonomimi" or "this is not kemonomimi": it's too obscure a term to be common knowledge, and so we're relying on each other as sources. And, it's hardly worth mentioning, we have a policy against that sort of thing. -kotra (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a 3 more criteria 1> The "animal-like character" must be of Japanese artwork, usually manga/anime, origin (or possibily heavily inspired by such artwork 2> must be predominately human 3> it must not be a costume. Meeting those criteria (as well as the one mentioned above) and yes, you could call that a kemonomimi. Of course, I realize all that fails WP:OR, but that's what a kemonomimi is. There is also in some communities an understood assumption that kemonomimi must be cute and/or sexy; possibly more of a side definition or narrower definition. 陣 内 Jinnai 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no reason to doubt your definition; it sounds reasonable to me, a non-expert. You're correct, though, that it's still original research... and so it could potentially be problematic. During its lifespan, though, Kemonomimi and List of Kemonomimi haven't been particularly problematic articles (aside from the systematic efforts to weaken them), so I won't press it any further. -kotra (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for OR, regardless of how sure you are in its veracity. The definition needs a reliable source - and one that clearly and explicitly states "Kemonomimi are X". 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did say the definition would be considered OR. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the very definition of kemonomimi cannot be sourced, then how can even begin sourcing examples of kemonomimi, much else a list of kemonomimi? The basic criteria for the list is based on isn't even verifiable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LIST and Dream/DGB. This list seems notable and most of the information for references can be found in the anime wiki links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Other wiki's are not reliable sources, and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself either. Also almost all manga or anime series don't calls characters kemonomimi.


 * Delete as an indiscriminate list; I can see a decent article being made about the animal ears themselves, but I've never seen the need for random lists of examples added haphazardly by fans. Doceirias (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a huge indiscriminate list chock full of original research. JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (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.