Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of animals


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Stereotypes of animals

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The page is a mess of WP:Original research. Having been tagged as OR since 2008, it has also been semi-protected for a full five years! The page is severely undersourced and drifts off topic more often than not. One user has done a heroic job on weeding out faulty entries, but there is just so much of it. For instance, see the "fearsome, terrifying Tyrannosaurus". Why would this true characeristic be a stereotype?

If anything, the information belongs on each animal's individual article. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * comment About Tyrannosaurus: I've deleted all dynos right after your nomm. As I've noted in several edit summaries, a huge lot of items were not stereotypes, but stock characters, such as fearless chipmunks of friendly wolves. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * kepp, a valid subject, whoe existence is easily verifiable. The poor state of an article is not a reason of its deletion, but for cleanup. In fact, that's what I am doing for over two years I have already deleted 75% of the article. But I am doing this in a slow pacee, giving chancde for editors to reintroduce the deleted pieces, supplied with proper citations. So far no one seriously contested my deletions, and I hope I will delete the remaining 15%:-). Lembit Staan (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I really like this article and is WP:INTERESTING but I can see why editors have had issues with sourcing, writing and maintaining it. The introduction certainly needs work and sourcing to get rid of the WP:OR. It is an enourmous topic and the use of "stereotype" clearly doesn't help things. However, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The article clearly meets WP:LISTN with sources treating this group ranging from the academic to the popular  (First sources I grabbed but there are many) . It is really such a huge topic I don't think this page will ever be much good without a massive amount of work sadly - but it's not a reason for deletion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with the above, the topic is notable and the article could use cleanup, not deletion.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2021 (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.