Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of 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 merge to Outline of transport. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Outline of animal-powered transport

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not provide much, if any, encyclopedic value. Basically, it is just lists without sourcing or context. Requesting a possible deletion and redirect to Pack animal, of course rescuing any useful information. TNstingray (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Outline of transport  // Timothy :: talk  00:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Pinging to see the responses below.   &mdash; The Transhumanist''   13:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pack animal isn't a suitable redirect for this outline, first, because that article isn't an outline, and second, because it doesn't represent most of the modes of transport on this list, which are vehicles pulled by animals, while a pack animal carries extra weight on its back. The title of this outline hits its mark well and is a subject worth navigating (see below).  &mdash; The Transhumanist   13:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The nominator appears to be complaining that this article is a stub, and about other points that are just plain mistaken, as follows:    1) Outlines are comprised of lists     2) Outlines do not include sources, because they are navigation aids that list and link to Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject     3) As with all outlines, context is provided by the relation of each topic to the subject of the outline -- as conveyed by its hierarchical structure and where each topic is located on it -- see tree structure, of which outlines are a type  Also, we don't generally delete outlines... we fix them, unless the topic itself does not exist.  But, the nominator hasn't pointed out anything actually wrong with it, or that violates guidelines pertaining to outlines. Looking around WP, there is a great deal on this subject -- there is ample need for this navigation aid, and much potential for expansion (it could use a "History of" section, for example).  Another important point is that, at the time of this posting, there is no regular article titled "Animal-powered transport" and that title redirects to this outline! Deleting this outline will remove the only article we have on this significant parent topic.  Please vote to keep this valuable navigation aid and informative list. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Outline of transport is already huge, and doesn't need this outline added to it -- it includes a link to this outline, for the sake of completion.  This outline is part of Wikipedia's content system -- to see its placement, visit Contents/Outlines.  Thank you. Sincerely,   &mdash; The Transhumanist   13:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not familiar with how outlines work on Wikipedia, but the quality of my nominated page and your example are both severely lacking, and the information seems like it would be presented much more effectively as an infobox, but this could just be my lack of familiarity with the outline system. Maybe this is something that needs to be discussed in a different place, but I find the lack of sourcing to be problematic. For this specific example, it lists moose and turtles as animals domesticated for transport... sounds highly suspect to me, and I have not been able to find sourcing supporting these. With this new context, I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that its current format appears to be problematic. TNstingray (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it can be fixed. What do you find problematic about the current format?  &mdash; The Transhumanist   06:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As of now, the outline is just presented as a somewhat random list of animals and vehicles. Some of these have information attached to them that is not referenced in the linked article. I guess I'm just not a fan of the outline format in general, as it seems to just be a less efficient infobox. As of now, with no sourcing, there is no way to create any sort of inclusion criteria as one would with actual articles in mainspace. I can't find anything about moose used as transportation, but what is stopping somebody from adding it back later, since sources aren't required? TNstingray (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The way inclusion verification of entries in all navigation aids has been handled over the years is... ... that each topic's article explains the nature of the topic; it would be unnecessary duplication of effort &mdash; and an impossibly huge endeavor &mdash; to prove in all outlines, categories, indexes, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc. that each entry belonged in it. Therefore, we leave it to the articles on the topics linked to to provide proof of inclusion, and verification carries through the link to those articles. If proof of inclusion is not there in the topic article, the topic should be removed from the relevant navigation aids, unless a citation is not required per WP:V. In most cases, you will find the inclusion criteria in the lead of the topic's article. Such as "Alabama is a state of the United States", establishing its inclusion eligibility for a good number of navigation aids on the US, even though that statement does not include a citation in the Alabama article (as the statement is not likely to be challenged, per WP:V).  &mdash; The Transhumanist   11:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This may be the worst outline I've ever seen here, and I'm not a big fan of outlines. There's a list of pack animals and then there's a list of vehicles like the omnibus that can be pulled by animals, with no explanations or organization. The latter largely duplicates Horse-drawn vehicle. Some of those vehicles could be pulled by cattle, but I broadly don't see the purpose of this as an outline with a bunch of context-free links. Reywas92Talk 17:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What kind of explanations and organization would you like to see?  &mdash; The Transhumanist   06:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "context-free links"?  &mdash; The Transhumanist   06:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Merge Redirect to Outline of transport. I do not see any reason to have this forked off of the outline of transport article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly-sourced, with no references. At least needs a rewrite, we need some sort of discussion around this concept rather just showing a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect (no merge needed) to Outline of transport, an existing section, as a valid search term. Keep the core list concise. czar  06:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Outline of transport, and I think starting a non-outline Animal-powered transport article would be a good idea.  " Pepper "  @ 00:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Outline of transport under Outline of transport, and redirect Outline of animal-powered transport to [[Outline of transport per WP:OVERLAP and WP:REDUNDANT. The 'outline' can be outlined in that article, I personally do not think it needs its own article per se. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (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.