Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional animal-powered transport


 * 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. Big Dom  16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional animal-powered transport

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a virtually infinite list. Crow? Sure, and if we watch enough cartoons, several dozen other species of bird, too. Lots of insects too. Cheetah, lion, giraffe, hamster, etc. Oh, then we have specific fictional animals. None of the horses on Horseland are real, so each of them would need to be listed, along with Trigger, Silver and every other fictional horse ever used. How about the car in the Flintstones? It's certainly fictional and it's animal-powered (Fred's feet power it). The flying bike in E.T. is certainly fictional and it's powered by E.T. and/or the kid. The kid is certainly an animal. Is E.T.? Can't tell... Is Superman an animal? His ability to fly (and walk, run, jump, etc.) are all animal-powered... How about all of those contraptions in various Dr. Suess books? SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be nothing but indiscriminate OR, even if limited to listing article subjects. If there's a valid list in there somewhere, I can't see it.  postdlf (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This list serves no purpose and is too broad and generic to be a useful list. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The keyword in my view is fictional. Almost any idea or concept dreamed up by someone's imagination could conceivably be made part of this list.--Hokeman (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally, such a list would be presumed restricted to examples from notable works of fiction, rather than someone's imagination, but I don't see the value of this. I can't even figure out whether they're referring to fictional species of animals that happen to be helping in transport, or whether the idea is to mention every important work where someone rode a horse.  I figured "crow" was added by a vandal having fun, but it's apparently part of the original list.  Just as well that there's no explanation.  Delete Mandsford 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per the proposal currently on the page. I note the WP:IDONTLIKEITs above don't take that possibility into account, which trumps straight deletion per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine that the information here is already present in the articles about Avatar (2009 film), Dragonriders of Pern and Avatar: the Last Airbender. Mandsford 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed merge is to Outline_of_transport. However as there is nothing sourced in this article, there is nothing to merge. Additionally, the target section (which needs to be renamed to avoid the problem I've stated) seems to be referring to A) proposed future transport (space elevators and such) and B) fictional transport like flying carpets and witches brooms. I don't see crow or Trigger (horse) fitting in there, though both apparently belong in this current article. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sixteen words is something that can be merged without waiting for a decision by an administrator. "Thanator, Banshee and Toruk in Avatar, Dragonriders of Pern, crow, Appa in Avatar: the Last Airbender".  That information can be placed elsewhere.  Mandsford
 * Keep A rare treasure indeed, nomination for deletion of a list article with the rationale for that editors will be unable to maintain it, complete with a, let's say, rough-hewn, straw man argument to present imaginary editors' exclusion criteria. Yawn.
 * Unmaintainability is a mutant hybrid of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and slippery slope (Boiling frog, etc) I call Appeal to Incompetence, which warns that editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it. This is WP:CREEP of the OR variety; trying to find new and original ways to delete articles that have no WP rules as rationale. You can't think of a rationale yourself? Try N, for what is there now. But that is not how it has to be.
 * The content as it stands is obviously pathetic, but it is really not that hard to think of good content for it: Horse, Mule, Donkey, Pony, Horse-drawn vehicle, Horse-drawn carriage, Horse-drawn boat, Horse-drawn railway, Horse-drawn tram, Horse-drawn trolley, Horse drawn artillery, Horse drawn cart, Horse-Drawn Streetcars, etc etc etc, are all good starting search terms to start with. Horse and Mule alone lead me to Trojan Horse, Mule (Foundation) (iffy), The Golden Ass, Bottom transformed in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Modesty of (Robert Louis Stevenson's Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes) Rucio ("my rucio" or "the rucio", Sancho Panza's donkey in Don Quixote, Eeyore of A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh books, Pinocchio, turned into a donkey for a time, Platero in Juan Ramon Jimenez's Platero and I, Benjamin, the skeptical donkey from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Puzzle in C. S. Lewis's The Last Battle. See? That's how you make a list, of really notable stuff, no messing around with obscure science fiction, and make something actually interesting and even inspiring to read. Knowledge and work. The deletion arguments so far are like the conspiracy theorists who say that the pyramids could not have been built by architects with straight edges, plumb bobs, compasses and set squares, so it must have been aliens. Where did I find Trojan Horse on the Horse page, you may ask? From what has been deleted, of course. Edit histories have the best material on Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The list is not fictional animals, but fictional animal-powered transports. Eeyore? Pinocchio?  I'm not familiar with them powering a transport (although I am not familiar enough with those topics to say that didn't). The trojan-horse is not fictional. Benjamin from Animal Farm was an animal, not an animal-powered transport.  The same can be said of almost everything else you listed. My argument is that the list is too broad and generic to be useful a useful list.  Are you saying that obscure things be excluded from the list?  If you want to make a good list, narrow the criteria for the list, not exclude things because of user preconceptions about what should belong.  As it stands, one of two things will happen to this list: either the list will be over-numerated to the point of uselessness, or people will continuously fight over what does and doesn't belong without any guidelines to back one argument over the other.  If the list were to be renamed to something along the lines of List of fictional horse-powered transportion or something along those lines, and then create other relevant lists where needed, that would greatly improve the list and make it more useful to people. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Benjamin drew, or transported, a variety of loads for Animal Farm, and it must be assumed, for Mr. Jones before that. The Trojan Horse is indeed fictional, although not exclusively so, as you quite accurately point out that it is considered to be based in historical fact. I agree that narrowing the scope of the article makes it more inclusive in that narrow scope, and is an option. I have a slight preference for a wider scope and more notable elements, but it is no big deal. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up and Keep. Lists of notable fictional elements are good, particularly with commentary that goes beyond a simple list (such as List of fictional Presidents of the United States). So the entry on crow should talk about the title character of A Cricket in Times Square flying on it. I'd lean against including horses here, as it's commonplace for horses to be ridden and there is already a List of fictional horses; maybe just in ==See also==. And we'd have to include The White Giraffe and the unicorn in Flight of the Horse. Matchups 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Points of argument making this topic worthless: A rowboat mentioned in a fictional story is "fictional animal powered transport". Pinocchio certainly transported something or, in the case of Jiminy, someone. Was he, being made of wood, an "animal"? Probably not, but the whale that swallowed him was. Geppetto obviously carried Pinocchio around, making him fit the category. List of fictional horse-powered transportation would include every fictional horse anyone would care to add. Got a fictional war with cavalry? Bingo. A stagecoach in a "Western" movie? Check. About a dozen named horses in Horseland? Oh, yeah. If we re-write the category to include only fictional means of transportation that are powered by horses, we're creating a topic for no discernible reason, kinda like List of purple fruits or List of fictional people with middle names. Yeah, we can create those, by why? No sources, reliable or otherwise, discuss those topics. If you'd like a category for topics similar to those, I won't stop you. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concede Pinocchio doesn't belong, even though he was turned into a donkey at one point. Mule (Foundation) and Bottom are also essentially humanoids, and could not be shoehorned in. Eeyore does not belong unless the title was List of fictional draught animals, unless I am forgetting him actually drawing something. The rest are valid, though. Imaginary straw man list names never get boring for me, no matter how often they are presented, so no harm done. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will. Don't encourage bad category creation.  postdlf (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no clear criteria or scope, sort of an indiscriminate list. No sourced or substantial content to merge. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate. An original idea for a list that is the invention of an editor and not of reliable sources. Impossible to delineate what belongs inside or outside this list. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my points on the role of editors above. 'Indiscriminate list' is a myth. If a list has notable elements and sufficient content, editors can decide on the limits of its content. It is not helpful, and I would add irresponsible, to simply throw up our hands and declare defeat because that is easy or satisfying. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel - I see you've added "Sun gods; gods of ancient religions were said to draw the sun disc across the sky". First of all, are gods animals? Second, are gods fictional? Jesus transported his cross (and was transported by a donkey) in the Christian NT. Are they fictional animal-powered transport? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel is just demonstrating to us what "indiscriminate" really means. Next up will be a page move to List of fictional, legendary, or mythical animal-powered transport (including people with animal features but who were not animals) and the characters, gods, or people who sometimes used it.  ; )  postdlf (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Close, Postdlf. However, since humans are animals, his article would be [[List of fictional, legendary, or mythical animal-powered transport (including people with animal features but who were not non-human animals) and the characters, gods, or people who sometimes used it. Further, we'll need to tweak it to include non-animals or creatures who may or may not be animals. Pinocchio was made of wood (until the very end of the story); did he turn into a "real" donkey? Are extraterrestrials "animals"? We'll need to start a considerable effort to determine if numerous legendary animals were real or fictional. I'll leave the debate on various gods for a future project. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep provided that there is a massive cleanup otherwise delete per WP:IINFO. Like most of the "list of fictional X" articles, this article is in appalling shape and it truly doesn't sound encyclopedic. In its current form the list is pure listcruft. The definition of the list must be clarified and its title should also probably be changed. As a list of "transport" I would expect to see vehicles, aircraft, and ships as entries. "Fictional animal-powered transport" evokes something out of Dr. Seuss. The lede speaks of "draft animals" or "mounts" and the entries are often characters. "List of fictional draft animals and mounts" would be much better. A serious discussion needs to take place as to whether the list is to include animals that are capable of acting as mounts and animals that have ever been used as mounts together with those that are primarily or always used as mounts. Give the list a proper definition and lede and then ruthlessly weed out the non-notable entries and those that don't meet the inclusion criteria (are they fictional? are they animals? etc.). Then source the entries that remain and you've got a keeper. -Thibbs (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am wholly unaware of any reliable sources discussing "fictional animal-powered transport". While there are certainly sources discussing something that many of us would agree is a fictional animal-powered transport. Similarly, there do not seem to be reliable sources discussing American actors who don't like broccoli (as opposed to discussing an American actor who doesn't like broccoli), so we do not have List of American actors who don't like broccoli. There are no reliable third-party sources on the topic. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." V - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, if no RSes exist on the topic then delete it. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as an open-ended list of dubious utility. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 28 March 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.