Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Animal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Animal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Animal[edit]

Mordella auropubescens[edit]

Mordella auropubescens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (marine, brackish) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegepet[edit]

Vegepet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review of references below.

Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.

Extended content
  • Compassion Circle sells the product, therefore not independent.
  • The 2023 systematic review of vegetarian pet food does not mention Vegepet.
  • The PETA citation is a search result and thus not a proper citation and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to look at over 300 results to verify anything.
  • References 4-8 do not mention Vegepet.
  • "Keep Your Pet Healthy the Natural Way" does not mention Vegepet.
  • I have not checked the 1988 book but I doubt it mentions Vegepet given it only existed for two years, if anyone can verify please do.
  • Sustainable Pet Food Association doesn't mention Vegepet.
  • Refs 13-14 don't appear to mention it but wouldn't qualify as establishing notability due to not being reliable.
  • The claim that the Vegan Sourcebook 'includes detailed information on VegePet' is quite false, it's a one paragraph advertisement in the appendix. Advertisements don't establish notability.
  • James Peden's book is self-published.
  • Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals is an MDPI journal with the author of it being the author of the website, he's referencing and advertising himself in a 'scientific' journal.
  • This reference, once again to the SPFA, does not mention Vegepet.
  • The reference to Compassion Circle is not independent and cannot establish notability
  • The AVMA is seemingly the only good reference in this article, but I don't see an article reviewing the nutritional adequacy of the product as establishing GNG
  • Vegepet itself cannot establish it's own notability
  • The Guardian article isn't about Vegepet.
  • Refs 23-29 do not appear to mention Vegepet.
  • Reference from earlier that doesn't mention Vegepet.

31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.

  • First article hosted on Researchgate doesn't mention Vegepet and the latter is a broken link.

The article "Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:

  • Notable Subject: Vegepet is a significant topic within the realm of veganism and pet care, addressing the growing interest in providing vegan diets for pets.
  • Relevant Information: The article provides valuable information about the concept of vegetarian and vegan pet food, contributing to the understanding of alternative diets for pets.
  • Community Interest: There is evident interest in the subject, as demonstrated by the ongoing discussion and contributions from Wikipedia users. This indicates that the topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • Educational Value: Including information about Vegepet aligns with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers. It allows individuals to learn about different dietary options for pets and the ethical considerations involved.
  • Neutral Presentation: The article presents information in a neutral manner, providing facts and references to support its content. It adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding neutrality and verifiability.

Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write that yourself? What you have presented here looks like something an AI would write. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article MaynardClark (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I would like to know where this slice of vegetarian and vegan pet food research fits into the longstanding historical forward movement of the topic. MaynardClark (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are suitable sources then post them: the onus is on you to provide them. I have already done a search for sources too but found nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VegePet "made news" in its time (from the mid-1990s through 2010) by being a pioneering brand in the field of vegan pet nutrition. Developed by Jim Peden and his then-wife, Barbara Lynn Peden, VegePet was among the first to offer plant-exclusive dietary solutions for pets, specifically dogs and cats. This was significant because it addressed the ethical concerns of feeding pets without harming other animals, aligning with the principles of veganism and vegetarianism.
Key Points:
  • Innovative Approach: VegePet introduced VegeDog and VegeCat, DIY pet food supplements that allowed pet owners to prepare nutritionally complete vegan meals for their pets. This was innovative at a time when commercial vegan pet food options were extremely limited.
    Historical Context: The development of VegePet occurred before the widespread use of the Internet, which means it gained traction through word of mouth, niche publications, and communities interested in veganism and ethical pet care.
    Media Coverage: Publications like Vegetarian Times mentioned VegePet in several articles, highlighting its role in the emerging market of plant-based pet foods. This helped establish its credibility and spread awareness among vegetarians and vegans who were looking for ethical feeding options for their pets.
    Ongoing Development: The Pedens' continuous product development and the eventual competition from other companies entering the plant-exclusive pet food market kept the conversation around vegan pet diets alive, contributing to its historical significance.
    Limited Online Presence: Despite its contributions, VegePet is not widely praised on the Internet, possibly due to its early development before the digital age and the rise of newer brands that utilized online marketing strategies more effectively. However, I have found at least two articles in Vegetarian Times that praised VegeDog at the time. This article needs time for more development.MaynardClark (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this reads like an AI chatbot wrote it. This is highly concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:NORG (particularly WP:NPRODUCT) or WP:GNG. I concur with the source analysis by Traumnovelle. I found one newspaper article that is independent, reliable, and might be considered significant coverage,[2] but it is from 1989, and couldn't find any significant coverage since their initial release (WP:NSUSTAINED). Being mentioned when media outlets write about vegetarian diets and supplements for pets doesn't make it Wikipedia-notable. (If the article is kept, it needs serious pruning to remove unrelated content and promotional content.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has survived an AfD before, and the Wikipedia notability article - WP:GNG - says that Notability does not expire.
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article Quite a few 'delete' votes are about (a) current state of sourcing in the article OR (b) whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards, which is not the WP:GNG we are taught to follow. MaynardClark (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaynardClark, I can't find a previous afd for this article, could you please link to it? Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit misleading to say Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards since there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. This is the only AfD. I looked at the first history screen when I had been reviewing the article's history and somehow ended up on the most recent screen. My bad! Sorry. I've been busy with other things and don't really have time for an AfD right now, but I'm pushing myself to look for references. I apologize. That is my error.
  • Delete. If kept, rename and immprove. It's a poor quality article, full of irrelevant information that is nothing to do with the subject of the article (I have trimmed some of it, but it needs a lot more). I vote for delete, as both the company and product do not meet the notability requirements. If retained I recommend it is moved to Compassion Circle and adapted into an article about the company that includes some appropriate content on the product. Not that the company appears to meet the GNG either. MarcGarver (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape[edit]

2024 zebra escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. SounderBruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom
PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)[edit]

The Vets (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws[edit]

Redemption Paws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. SilverserenC 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [3] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news (WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. SilverserenC 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild[edit]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bannon, Anne Louise (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Jack Hanna's Into the Wild". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The review notes: "While she show offers interesting information (for example, one episode talks about how to tell the difference between black and white rhinos), the overall feeling is that there's something missing. That Hanna is a strong cheerleader for animal conservation and educating kids about animals is without doubt -- but there's a difference between being a cheerleader and being an apologist. Hanna routinely dances around more substantive issues."

    2. Willow, Molly (2007-11-03). "Jack Hanna and family go global for new series". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "With his latest TV foray, the syndicated series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, Hanna is making use of his traveling companions. In addition to his daughter Kathaleen, who appeared often on her dad's previous series, Animal Adventures, wife Suzi and daughters Suzanne and Julie are part of the new show. ... Guy Nickerson, whose company Spectrum in Tampa, Fla., worked on Animal Adventures with Hanna for 10 years, helped him create the new series, which is shown in 85 percent of the country. ... The series is filmed in high-definition and consists of the Hanna family's travels to learn about animals. ... An early episode included a visit to Rwanda, and episodes scheduled to run in the spring were filmed at the Wilds conservation center in southeastern Ohio and at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium."

    3. Morse, Hannah (2018-08-21). "Latest episode Jack Hanna show features Loggerhead Marinelife Center". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "The latest episode of “Jack Hanna’s Into The Wild” features Loggerhead Marinelife Center. ... The episode, titled “Saving Sea Turtles,” takes viewers on a tour of the center’s work and shows Solana’s release. The Hannas also watch a sea turtle nesting on the beach in the episode, said Rachel Csaszar, who works in Hanna’s office at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. ... The show is in its 11th season."

    4. "'Jungle' Jack Hanna Brings 'Into the Wild' to Ithaca". The Ithaca Journal. 2016-03-01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: ""Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," debuted. This unscripted series shows Hanna and his family as they explore the corners of the globe and animals and cultures. "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" is the recipient of three Emmy Awards, winning in the category of Outstanding Children's Series."

    5. Pursell, Chris (2006-12-18). "Hanna Returns From the Wilds". Television Week. Vol. 25, no. 47. p. 3. ISSN 1544-0516. EBSCOhost 510693361.

      The article notes: " Longtime syndication staple Jack Hanna is partnering with Trifecta Media and Entertainment for a new original half-hour weekly series set to launch in fall 2007. The series, "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," marks Mr. Hanna's first new project since the 1990s and will follow his adventures around the world in search of the ultimate animal experience. Unlike previous series featuring the animal expert, this series will include Mr. Hanna's family on the travels. Among the crew who will participate are Mr. Hanna's wife, Suzi, and daughters Kathaleen, Suzanne and Julie, as well as longtime crew members and confidantes Glenn Nickerson and Dan Devaney. ... Trifecta will offer 22 half-hour installments of "Into the Wild," available for broadcast during the 2007-08 television season on a full barter basis. The company will handle all advertising sales for the program through its New York office, headed by Trifecta partner Michael Daraio."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Maas, Jennifer (2023-12-19). "Jack Hanna's 400-Episode 'Into the Wild' and 'Wild Countdown' Library Acquired by Hearst Media Production Group (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "Legendary wildlife host Jack “Jungle Jack” Hanna’s TV franchise library, including 400 episodes of “Jack Hanna’s Into the Wild” and “Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown” has been acquired by Hearst Media Production Group."

      2. Larsen Stoddard, Aimee (2010-03-11). "Jungle Jack Hanna". Salt Lake City Weekly. ProQuest 363111415. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "He is currently hosting the TV series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, which received a 2008 Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Children's Series."

      3. Albiniak, Paige (2009-11-01). "Trifecta Jumping into First-Run Programming". Broadcasting & Cable. ProQuest 225320084. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "Mystery Hunters will air in Trifecta's one-hour E/I block along with Animal Atlas. The company had been distributing Jack Hanna's Into the Wild in that block, but chose to stop distribution of that show due to low ratings."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jack Hanna's Into the Wild to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's evidence, didn't review all of it but there appears to be enough for GNG. Will review my comment if something significantly changes. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article wasn't up to spec but the show is notable. Niafied (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Animal&oldid=1225276287"