Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of animals

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete, however I couldn't resist the cuteness of this page so I moved it to User:Ta bu shi da yu/Types of animals and reverted back to the original submission :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Types of animals
There's nothing here we haven't already got in other articles (and better written). Can someone suggest where best to redirect it? Deb 20:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete evidence suggests this was written by a little kid. Delete, but let's be really nice about it. UPDATE: Keep as revised. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  20:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aww, it's so cute. I'd hate to delete it, maybe move it to BJAODN. It's not something that can stay where it is, though. --Golbez 20:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Should have been given a speedy delete in the first place. How can you be really nice to an Anon and one who had just before this article, vandalised Introduction? -- RHaworth 21:42, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as sandbox escapee, but oh so gently. We should encourage more kids, especially ones who take the time to add wikis.  It's certainly a BJAODN candidate if it isn't considered cruel to place it there. - Lucky 6.9 22:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Jpo 00:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I adore this article. Speedy it. Wyss 02:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this was an honest effort, and I think we can make a useful redirect or a disambiguation page out of it. Someone could easily type in "Types of animals." And RHaworth, looking at the edit history, I don't see what the problem is with those edits to Introduction. - RedWordSmith 03:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * A redirect or disambig is a great idea. Is that what finally happened to that "Pope hat" thingamawhatzit we were debating last week?  Oh, and thanks for the LOL, Wyss! - Lucky 6.9 03:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make a disambig out of it, although I'm no biologist. Let me know what you all think. - RedWordSmith 04:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I've been caught by that before - that bit of Introduction is a sandbox. -- RHaworth 05:36, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure too sure it's a good idea to encourage 9-year olds to browse wikipedia, with some of the content it has, and the way pages on children's topics can link to adult ones. However, wikipedia seems to need an article to cover 'types of animal' so I vote keep unless someone does find a place to redirect to. Keep rewritten page, thank you RedWordSmith. Kappa 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Meantime, keep fine new disambig page. - Lucky 6.9 04:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fairly useful disambig now. Keep.  -Sean Curtin 04:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful. Megan1967 06:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now in its present revised state. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 09:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * After monitoring this discussion, changing vote to delete. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 17:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is much better now than the original.   However, animals do not come in "types".  Other terms are used for the classification or taxonomy of animals.  Moreover, this is not a disambiguation page.   A disambiguation page is in order when several articles on different subjects would otherwise have the same title.   By the way, there is already an Animals article, which is itself a disamiguation page.   The current text would be an improvement over the text of Animals and could simply be merged there.  However, this page should be deleted and Types of animals should not be a redirect.   We shouldn't be in a big rush to create articles for every phrase or term that somebody might conceivably enter into a Google or Wikipedia search box. At present, if you do a search on "Types of Animals"+Wikipedia in Google, the first Google result is Animal, which is perfectly fine.  The article was created originally by a child, which is not strong evidence that "types of animals" is a phrase that warrants an article.    It is getting to be ridiculous how many articles are being created just because Wikipedia's search function is pathetic.   Encyclopedias have indexes, you know.  --BM 16:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even after improvement, the article is hardly a legitimate discussion of animal classification, and simply muddies the waters where there is a legitimate taxonomy.  In what sense is an animal's conservation status its "type"?  This has no academic value.  Postdlf 16:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Postdlf, this is not a helpful article, more misleading than anything else, has no scientific basis at all. Wyss 17:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have said, this article is not scientifically accurrate. It mixes different levels of taxonomy, and mixes different kids of categoreis, and gives so few examples in each case is does discuss as to be misleading. A total re-write could produce a useful page on Taxonomy of animals, except that that already exists. This was a nice try, but simply not up to the level of being encyclopeadic. DES 17:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I now withdraw my request for deletion. Deb 17:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia does have a page on the taxonomy of animals, animal, but apart from types of animals there is nothing about any other possible ways of classing animals, or nothing that I can find.

Voting so far: Delete=8 Keep=4

Wyss 18:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with BM, though I wouldn't terribly mind this being a redirect to animal or some article that may exist on animal taxonomy, but basically I think this is a delete (and the original should have been speedied). -R. fiend 20:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Type, class, and category are synonyms. There are many ways to classify animals other than Scientific Classification (which is addressed in the disambig) and the stub mentions several: Conservation status; relationships with humans such as Domesticated, Wild, Feral and Pet; Marine mammal. In addition: Working dog list several ways to classify dogs alone; Breed standard is another unscientific categorization of animals (see also List of horse breeds or maybe Cattle); animals are also typed by the biomes in which they live, desert animals, prairie animals, woodland animals, etc; and could identifed as Food or Game animals. -DialUp 06:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. It's a decent article but still needs more clarification. --Andylkl 07:36, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that the original article amounted to a cute user test by a child, a borderline speedy if ever there was. Wyss 23:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your honour, the defence submits that our client is a reformed character. Kappa 20:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, methinks your client never needed reformin' ;) I adored her article, don't think much of this rescue attempt though. Wyss 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Comment: I really wonder how useful the existence of this page is. Nothing really links here, and I can't see anyone doing a search for "types of animals" (excepting an occasional 8 year old). Are we going to have pages for kinds of animals, sorts of animals, categories of animals, various animals, etc? It seems any useful information here that isn't already included in animal should be merged into that article under an animal classification section. -R. fiend 17:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming it survives, the material can be merged into animal or made into a breakout, maybe renamed to examples of animals. Compare it with Animal. Kappa 00:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)