Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal

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:

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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Animal

List of horse breeds in DAD-IS

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

Fails notability for standalone lists and WP:GNG. This article is a table of entries drawn from a single online database, one which isn't a reliable source itself (see Talk:DAD-IS § Evaluation concludes DAD-IS is generally unreliable for horse topics). Neither this article nor its associated article DAD-IS shows any sources which are independent of the subject, and certainly no significant coverage. All citations are published by FAO, the host of the database. Also fails under WP:NOTCATALOG. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[1] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [2][3]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dipluridae species

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

This is effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that duplicates information in Dipluridae and its various genus pages. Keeping it doubles the amount of work to keep the wiki up to date, and doesn't add anything. There is a list of genera in Dipluridae, and a list of species within each genus (e.g. Linothele). The lists are not so long as to unbalance the articles and justify having their own page. Each genus in Dipluridae has its own article, so there's no longer a case to list species by family due to an absence of genus articles, as I understand was the rationale for this system. There is some precedence for deleting this based on the List of Salticidae Species deletion. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support In the early days of creating spider articles, there may have been a rationale for having lists of species by family, rather than including them in genus articles, but this is no longer the case. As the nominator rightly says, listing species by family and then again by genus creates redundancy, adds nothing, and makes maintenance more difficult, frequently leading to inconsistencies. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Such list articles make updating the taxonomy more difficult and sometimes they get overlooked leading to inconsistencies. The list are useful when there there are few genus articles and the list unbalances the family article, but this isn't the case here. A list might be suitable if it includes other information (habitat, conservation, web type, etc) but again that's not the case here. When here are large numbers of species, lists at the genus level seems more appropriate. — Jts1882 | talk 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The family article has a linked list of recent genera, each of which has a species list; and for the fossil genera (where we don't have separate genus articles) it does list the species, which are few. This article adds nothing beyond these components, and thus seems surplus to requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]