Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual animal anecdotes


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of unusual animal anecdotes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While this list does not fit in a clear deletion category (WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes closest, and WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay), I don't believe it actually is the kind of list that fits Wikipedia. It is basically unlimited, the only restriction being that it has to involve animals. It explicitly encourages primary sources, which is not the best idea either. Listing and reading anecdotes is amusing but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this is the kind of stuff that goes in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. It's just indiscriminate cruft. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an impressively referenced compendium of loosely related information. Some kind of better organization might be found for it, or moved to more specialized lists.  I note that there seems to be no discussion on the talk page with regard to either ways to make the list more discriminating or break it down into more easily defined subjects, like list of animals in battle, list of animals rescuing people, and so forth.  I understand the concern, but deletion seems somewhat drastic for a first step, and AfD is not cleanup.  Provisionally keep this article.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete our articles aren't meant to be collections of trivia. This is altogether unencyclopedic: can you imagine Britannica ever including such an article, even if they had limitless resources?  There's no need for discussion on the talk page: the very idea of an article on this subject is way too broad, and no talk page discussion can rescue that problem.  Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've linked a few articles to this entry because I think it does a nice job collecting some related events spread out across Wikipedia. Looks like there is some trivia that needs to be trimmed but I think its deletion would significantly remove information from Wikipedia which seems like a good litmus test. If a list doesn't add value, it should go. This one seems like it does. It's got 100+ sources of weight; why doesn't someone improve what they don't like about it instead of getting rid of the whole thing? 216.65.215.213 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Improving what I don't like about it" = "getting rid of the whole thing". ;-) Fram (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This entry is an impressively researched piece regarding the importance of animals to historical events. The title should be changed to be more specific to its content though. Zukin (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you actually reading the same article? How is Da Vinci believing in unicorns " the importance of animals to historical events"? How is the circus elephant Hanksen important to historical events? How is (fill in 99% of the anecdotes) important to historical events? Bucephalos having a city named after him, that is an historical event. I am hard pressed to see much more of these in the article. Schrodinger's Cat is obviously important, but then again, I fail to see how this thought experiment is an animal anecdote... Fram (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep While this page is very much a work-in-progress, I believe that deleting it is unwarranted. Miltthetank (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot fathom why this should be deleted rather than improved. Because you believe it is somewhat vague, it is unsalvageable? Dotingmatrix (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat vague? No, completly undefined. A list of everything remotely to do with animals, no matter if it are sculptures of animals, hunting of animals, thought experiments with animals, deification of animals, things that happen to animals in literature, ... Yes, this list is completely unsalvageable and acvtually a disgrace for any encyclopedia except uncyclopedia. Being sourced is not sufficient to turn something into an encyclopedic article; being on an encyclopedic subject is equally important. A "list of X" in general is a good subject if and only if "X" is in itself a clearly defined subject of research. Fram (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What's more alarming is calling an article a disgrace and having a whole history of trying to delete rather than improve. That's the essence of a collaborative encyclopedia. I understand what you're saying, however, the edit history and discussion page of the article don't show any evidence of a problem with irrelevant additions or undefinability. Appears to be working nicely. Dotingmatrix (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The people interested in contributing to the article do not see the problem: this does not mean that there is no problem. People who do think that the article is problematic may not be inclined to improve it, preferring to spend their time on more productive things. Apart from that, please comment on content, not on contributors, and if you do comment on the contributor, try to be correct. I have a history of trying to delete things I don't consider suited for Wikipedia, and of trying to improve things I do consider suitable. To suggest otherwise is incorrect. But of course it takes more time to go through thousands of edits than to check all three edits you have made, all of them to this discussion. Don't lecture people on improving things when you have not contributed anything yet please... Fram (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis of WP:TRIVIA which states "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way." A well-researched and documented trivia page, to be sure, but a trivia nonetheless.  I appreciate that the author has taken the time to do the sourcing and citations that should be part of any Wikipedia article, and it is copiously researched.  And yes, it seems harsh to delete something well-documented when there are so many pages on Wikipedia that aren't at all documented.  Finally, I commend the author for his candor-- this is indeed a collection of "unusual animal anecdotes".  But where is it going?  What's the point, other than assembling some amusing and unrelated anecdotes in chronological order?  It reminds me of the old Ripley's Believe It or Not books of later years, which consisted of something like 128 days worth of columns in a 128 page paperback.  Entertaining, yes, encyclopedic, no.  Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally get where you're coming from but, to answer your question, it's probably going in the same direction as the List of unusual deaths which has become an intelligent, organized piece due to hard work on the part of editors. Also, the Trivia rules, I think, apply more towards trivia sections in individual articles. Lists like this provide a service by collecting encyclopedic knowledge that would be strange on its own but, when aggregated, has a purpose. I could easily see myself using this as a reference tool were I writing a report on animals, looking into the anthropological roots of blood sports, etc. Miltthetank (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TRIVIA problems. This stuff belongs in Ripley's Believe it or Not!. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But all of this is true, if we can trust the sources. Keep but potentially alter the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.82.131 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's trivia. That it is referenced only makes it referenced trivia -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think this can be considered trivia if List of unusual deaths has survived 3 AFDs. I stand by my keep. Dotingmatrix (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Coment: Does anyone have any idea why this AfD attracts all kinds of "unusual" editors? Apart from regular editor User:Ihcoyc (provisional keep), all keeps are from an IP, a very irregular editor (User:Zukin, 4 edits in 2007 and 2008), User:Miltthetank (only 6 edits, only 3 in 2008, all to this AfD), and User:Dotingmatrix (all 3 edits are to this AfD). Most AfD's I see have a number of regular editors, and some editors who have a clear link to the article in question. What I see here is quite unusual... Fram (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please be clearer? I'm not certain exactly what you're insinuating. Miltthetank (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like there has been some "call" to come and keep this article. Whether this happened through email or on some website or by some other means is unclear, but the chance that all of you (re)appear just in time and only for this AfD seems unlikely if not for some outside intervention. Fram (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, found it; you are a "friend" of Ryan Holiday, the main contributor to the article at hand. Improbable that this is a coincidence... Fram (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You caught me, I'm his 'friend' on digg. All I am saying is that this list isn't trivia, these are historical facts that have value. The pop culture ones, like Hugh Hefner's zoo and the scientific name for giraffes coming from Caesar - those aren't trivial. They're educational, if anything. As for your strange insinuations, Ryan Holiday is a fairly well-known blogger and I saw this AFD on delicious. I know this isn't a democratic vote, I'm just saying that this doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of trivia at all. In fact, getting rid of it will probably result in an increase of trivia on other individual pages. Miltthetank (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I can see where this information might be organized by different types of animals, though it still gets into an overwhelming amount of trivia. Consider all the "good dog!" news stories that regularly appear in the press (if your Sunday comics has Marmaduke, there's a feature there called "Dog Gone Funny"). Certainly, the can all be sourced, but which dog stories are the most significant? Anything would be better than the current arrangement, which seems to follow the one-damn-thing-after-another view of history. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2008 (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.