Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming


 * 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   redirect to Personal_name. Does appear to be a fork/duplication, per Savonneux. Additionally, sources do not seem persuasive at this point. There may be more to say on the topic than is currently said in the existing article, but this is a reason to improve the existing article, not to fork it. If the section becomes too long as a result, then consensus to split it off to a sub-article may emerge. I am accordingly deleting, then redirecting as a potential search term. Shimeru (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pet naming

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Non-notable. This is surely stretching the boundaries as to what sort of articles are included in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, little more than a dictionary definition, with most of the other content bordering on original research. Worth a brief mention in the article about pets at best. J I P  | Talk 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As per Alan and JIP. This is definitely stretching the boundaries as to what sort of articles are included in any encyclopedia -   WP is about knowledge, it's NOT a repository for poorly  conceived magazine articles.--Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it may bea GF contrib from a minor.--Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep is well sourced, despite the fact it is a stub. There are entire books written on the subject, as you can see here. This goes far beyond the requirement for WP:GNG. The rationale behind the deletion is nothing more than WP:JNN ("just not notable"), while the other comments appear to be WP:PERNOM, PERMAJORITY, and Just unencyclopedic. Shaliya waya (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that an article may be referenced and there may be books on the topic but it still should not be included in WP. In the interest of long term maintenance and to set some sort of boundary or bottom line I feel that there are some articles that are not worthy of inclusion. I don't want to be snobbish about it but pet naming is not the sort of knowledge that I would expect to be in an encyclopedia. We should have articles on history, mammals, cats, pets etc but not pet naming. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are very valid occasions for "just not encyclopedic" if applied with  common sense, and IMO this article  is one of them. Don't look for a WP Guideline about  it  though, because See WP:UNENCYC.  A decision  to  keep or delete this article will  have to be based on  the closer's integrity.--Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment it's already covered in two topics Personal_name: "In some cultures, pets or sporting animals are sometimes given names similar to human names." and in Name: "The name of a specific entity is sometimes called a proper name." --Savonneux (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete after looking at sources and trying to find something more tangible. Pets have names, boats [and ships] have names; in other words, X has a name and it's usually based on cultural attitude.--Savonneux (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see this as any more notable than the topic of what color to paint the kitchen. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes it very notable then as there are thousands of sources which cover that topic in detail. Here's one which took just a few seconds to locate: The Kitchen book.


 * Delete Seems more like a dictionary definition. Joal Beal (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, naming pets is clearly part of the social construction of biography, which is why lab rats don't get names. Polarpanda (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at most, merge to an article on pets. This is just a content fork, not different from creating an article on reading literature as a fork of literature. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into pet. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Those who claim lack of sources seem to ignore Potential, not just current state. This article is just a stub, and has a great potential for expansion. If you go to Barnes and Noble, you will find at least several books entirely devoted to this topic. That is by far enough to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Those who say this doesn't appear simply personally not to like the idea of this article. The dicdef argument is not enough to delete it either. Look at WP:NOT. It says Definitions. Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. This says they should be expanded, not deleted. Being short or being a stub does not mean it is a dicdef. Yes, it is true that the majority now say it should be deleted. But these are mostly just votes. The keeps here have much better points. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is very notable as there are numerous books devoted to the topic. And one can immediately find other relevant sources such as the NYT - Naming your pet dog (is) often a sacred rite.  The contrary opinions just seem to be blatant cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, unsupported by neither fact nor policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Heaping all the contrary opinions into one group makes it simple. At least two of us has pointed out it's a fork. --Savonneux (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above.--John Chestpack (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are news articles about it, as found above, as well as plenty of books mentioning this.  D r e a m Focus  16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - classical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. It cannot be denied that pet naming is a notable and thoroughly discussed feature of many human cultures. The article now is for sure just a stub, but Shaliya waya above gets it right. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it can be denied. The act of "verbing X" may be extremely commonplace ("fence painting", for instance) while not being a topic which can be covered given our standards for sourcing. As Savonneux noted, this subject is already covered in sufficient detail by the existing Personal name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be denied if you want to deny the obvious, of course. Fence painting would be a perfectly reasonable subject; there's plenty of references on Google Books for example to make it a notable per WP:GNG. It is very difficult to find an extremly commonplace act that hasn't RS coverage. Pet naming is not one of these theoretical exception, since it has resources on it. Moreover, Personal name doesn't have the same scope (i.e. it talks also of names that nonhuman animals give themselves), and it doesn't have the same level of detail which should be expect by an article on pet naming.-- Cycl o pia  talk  15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In Japan, dogs are often given non-Japanese first names, such as "John" or "Charley." From Personal name. I'm fairly certain it's not about names animals give each other. --Savonneux (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're happy to agree that the subject is exactly as notable as fence painting then let's leave it at that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:41, 17 May 2010 (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.