Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in in 50 mln years fron now in the book After Man: A Zoology of the Future. The species are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. The hypothesized species are furthermore mentioned in the main article. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, with the list already in the main article (and the main article already merely describing book events), I have treated this list as an article here. Please note, I have proposed a very similar page for deletion last week and came across this one by looking at all deleted links following that deletion... L.tak (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this steaming pile of non-notable tripe. "Unidentified shrew"? Aaaargh. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Before it gets deleted, the authors need to merge this back to the article that it shouldn't have been spun out of in the first place. Both this and After Man: A Zoology of the Future have their defects, the main one being the illusion that these are real animals.  Because the parent article relies on this one as a crutch, it simply recites the made-up "scientific names" (Butorides piscatorius, Grima frondiforme, etc.) as if they existed, while this article lists details of animals that exist only in an author's imagination.  For a similar list of made up scientific names, see Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner.  Mandsford 02:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WPN --Anna O&#39;Leary (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment it should be noted that this was a content fork from the After Man: A Zoology of the Future article, and that it was condensed considerably after the fork. Also, I notice that one of the nom's main arguments is that it is written in an in-universe style, which, although a pressing issue, is hardly a reason for deletion.  I agree, by the way, that something like "unidentified shrew" is inappropriate.  I think a named-creatures-only rule would work well here.  ☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 19:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete must agree with with some of the harsher delete votes here. The list is 'marvelous' fiction but can have no place in an encyclopaedia Benqish (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (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.