Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wild animals given human names

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. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of wild animals given human names

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that such a list is, or could ever be notable. The author in removing the PROD references a blog that superficially discusses the benefits or disbenefits of giving wild animals human names to aid conservation. This suggests that there might be a potential article something like The conservation value of named animals but even this would be at high risk of being WP:OR and this isn't that article. This article has no references other than those for the individual animals. There is no evidence that the concept is notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Attempting to find sources for this list led me to the same conclusion as the nominator, namely that this list is not notable, but an article on the value of naming wild animals would be notable, since that is heavily discussed in a wide variety of sources. No one suggests simply listing all the wild animals that have been given names... according to the sources I found, this would be akin to simply listing all wild animals in every zoo, ever. Nonsense. Fieari (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree completely with the above arguments. It's arguable that the concept of humanizing wild animals by giving them human names is notable in the first place. Even if it was, this isn't an article on the concept at all. I don't see the value of keeping this page. We should be rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. The value of keeping this page is that it isolates incidences where humans have for various reasons reached across the species divide and declared affinity with animals, by granting them human names. The list should exist as it provides a pool of examples of this curious phenomenon, a phenomenon which tells us a lot about ourselves, and indeed a phenomenon noted in conservationist literature. I note that all animals in zoos are by definition no longer wild, and that listing all named zoo animals (Harambe excluded) would be folly indeed. This here is a different matter. Naming wild animals for their quirks is notable and of interest, I hope you can agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodiddly23 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bodiddly23, I appreciate the sentiment, but we have to follow the sources here, and are not allowed to engage in Original Research. The sources which discuss naming wild animals do lump zoo animals in with the practice. No source I could find discusses exclusively wild, not-in-captivity animals with names, or the activity of naming them. You may be able to find a source that gives a name for a single wild not-in-captivity animal, but collecting all these into a single article would be Original Research without at least one Reliable Source that does the same thing. And this reliable source is what we lack, unless you are aware of one? Fieari (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thoughts Fieari. I have located this source tackling exclusively the issue of naming wild animals - making a distinction between wild and zoo animals, ie. Cecil the Lion vs Harambe the mountain gorilla in this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ I also note this lengthy conservation discussion, though it is not an article per se: http://safaritalk.net/topic/15753-the-naming-of-animals/ Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I proposed the article for deletion using the same notability rationale as Velella. As I told Bodiddly23, according to point 6 of Wikipedia is not a directory -> Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: Cross-categories like animals and human names are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Since the author thinks that that is the case, I asked him to search for sources to justify its inclusion, but I agree with Velella that the link to the blog is clearly not enough to establish the needed in-depth coverage from multiples reliable sources independent of the subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- **Thank you for your thoughts Crystallizedcarbon. I have located this source tackling exclusively the issue of naming wild animals - making a distinction between wild and zoo animals, ie. Cecil the Lion vs Harambe the mountain gorilla in this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ I also note this lengthy conservation discussion, though it is not an article per se: http://safaritalk.net/topic/15753-the-naming-of-animals/ Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bodiddly23: I think the article you just mentioned from theintelligencer is a valid reliable source. The discussion in safaritalk however is not. If you can find more sources like the one from theintelligencer then you could argue that the subject meets our general notability guidelines by demonstrating in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. You could then expand the article to explain the concept and its relevance based on the reliable sources and since the list is short, you include it within the article or keep it as an annex. But all of this only if you can find the needed additional sources to establish notability. If you do I would change my vote to keep (but changing its title). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment If notability is established, a more suitable title, in any case, would be something like "Naming of free wild animals" or "The conservation value of named animals" as suggested by Velella. As Fieari pointed out the current wording of the title includes zoo animals as well. Such a list would make no sense in any case.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Crystallizedcarbon:, I am assessing these suggestions. I have renamed the page. I appreciate the guidance. Having found multiple source, I see that the article topic is the phenomenon of naming free wild animals. This article could contain a list of example named free wild animals. I will hone. Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per WP:IINFO. There are probably tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of animals in captivity with human names. Such a list is unmaintainable. shoy (reactions) 14:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Misread shoy (reactions) 12:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- shoy, the article concerns wild animals, not animals kept in captivity. Compare cecil the lion with Harambe the western lowland gorilla. The naming of a wild animals is a peculiar and controversial phenomemon, as noted by this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this fails WP:SAL. As Shoy notes, it is an unmaintainable list (scope too large). Moreover, even if named wild animals was a notable topic (plausible, but needs sources), it would not follow that a list of those would be notable - most likely, the parent article could discuss a few examples following RS analysis. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Tigraan, what is RS analysis? Surely with all the lists in wikipedia, there is room for a list dedicated to the phenomenon noted in this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ A day may come in the near future when we look with wonder at the audacity of man to grant names to wild animals - Benson the Carp for example - to assume, even 'ape' affinity (if I may) with wild creatures. Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodiddly23: "RS analysis" = what reliable sources have written about the subject. While an article from the Edwardsville Intelligencer may or may not be considered so (it is a minor newspaper, compare with others at The Intelligencer), that particular article reads like personal opinion of the author, so it probably isn't.

In any case, notability is a higher bar than verifiability, and that is why there is "no room" for that subject on Wikipedia. Unlike in paper media, space is not a problem on Wikipedia, but there still is an "editorial board" (the community) that does not wish Wikipedia to become a place to dump anyone's personal thoughts. (Of course, this is a rough summary of hundreds of pages of guidelines...)

Finally, even if named wild animals was a legitimate subject for an article, I do not think the encyclopedia would benefit from splitting the article with a list of such animals, unless it becomes excessively long. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT; I don't think readers would expect to find such a list in an encyclopedia. This topic has not been the subject of independent inquiry and appears to be trivia and / or original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a meaningless list. What is a "human name"? Only humans name things, so every animal has a human name, the human name for the species of animal it is! And it gets silly if we remember that the meanings of human personal names are very varied so will include names that actually originated as the names of animals, or their characteristics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above - Listcruft. It looks like there is already a clear consensus, only voting on this one to maybe get it closed. MB 01:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I agree with several of the arguments above that this should be deleted, I want to comment to Bodiddly23 that there looks like there may be an opportunity for an article anthropomorphism of animals either as a stand-alone article or as an expansion of anthropomorphism. See for example Biodiversity and Conservation, Phys.org, MNN, Mongabay, Science 2.0, Science Daily, DW, and Audubon. Several of these are about the same paper (the first one), but not all, and there looks to be a lot more. Food for thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.