Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of animals (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Five months ago, there was a unanimous Keep decision and now we have a consensus to Delete. I don't think that we have seen the last of this title. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Stereotypes of animals
AfDs for this article:


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

Renominating this article for AfD because the previous one was closed prematurely after rather poor keep arguments. A large chunk of the article; most of it in fact, is blatant original research. Most of the refs don't even regard animal stereotypes directly, and their inclusion is WP:SYNTH - drawing conclusions from unrelated sources. There could be a grain of notability in the topic but it is clear it would require an utter rewrite in any case. No improvement seems to have been done since the previous AfD at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is pretty much entirely comprised of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Notability is a moot point, as any kind of article on the topic would need to be completely re-written in its entirety to even pass our basic policy of WP:Verifiability.  Even then, I would argue that any actual sourced material on the common depictions of a specific type of animal would be better suited to be included on the main article on that specific animal or one of its spinouts, rather than having a massive list of what can be best described as "all animal trivia". Rorshacma (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of animals participants:, , , and . Cunard (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I stand by my previous keep vote for the most part but I am now wondering if this is a candidate for WP:TNT. It is a notable topic but this article is just a badly sourced "List of Stereotypes of animals". A better example of how this should be structure is Anthropomorphism. If this article was improved, almost none of the current content would be retained. Interested in what other editors think though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It surprises me to come to this conclusion, but I think this does actually have a useful function as a list. I think a prose article would just attract even more OR and and SYNTHy stuff, that would then be harder to remove (I can hear the "deletion is not cleanup" already), and wouldn't be as useful for one of the couple hundred-ish readers who visit this page every day, who probably come here to learn... well, some animal stereotypes? Rather than a consideration of the meaning or concept of an animal stereotype. I might propose renaming it to "List of animal stereotypes" and cutting it down to only the things that are sourced or could be handled with a "see also", but then there's barely anything left. Worth it? I don't know. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a general dislike of list articles and their proliferation on WP for a number of philosophical reasons - I admit my bias here. They usually descend into WP:TRIVIA and WP:SYNTH which is basically what this article is right now. In my vote in the previous discussion, I listed a number of works that speak extensively about this as a topic. I see that value of exploring this holistically and that seems most encyclopaedic. Further, a list article needs these kinds of sources which speak about the topic as a whole to meet WP:LISTN. However, seeing as no one (inc. myself) is doing much to improve this article as it is maybe the best option is to move it to dreaded the realm of listipedia. At least then the article will do what is says on the tin. Again - I am biased here so take with a pinch of salt. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete clear WP:OR. Most of the article relies on what a historical text or person may have used a particular word to define something else than the actual 'stereotypes'. Shankargb (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:SYNTH/OR policy issues abound to the point WP:GNG isn't established. As discussed above, I also don't think this would qualify for a list. KoA (talk) 18:31, 7 February 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.