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

Lowly Worm

AfDs for this article:

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

A character in the Busytown series. Previously kept in 2010, but the character has little sourcing, with all I could find largely being either mentions in a work analyzing Busytown and giving background summary, mentions in biographies or guidebooks, or mentions of the phrase "lowly worm". The two sentences of actual coverage can easily be put into the Busytown article, while the mention of the recall does not seem particularly relevant to Lowly Worm himself and moreso to a wider series-wide event. I do not see any reason this article needs to be kept separate when it can easily be covered alongside Busytown with greater benefit to the reader, in line with WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Animal. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Busy World of Richard Scarry#Cast – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional worms

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as just a listing of different fictional worms. A search yields no coverage on worms in fiction as a set, only on either particular entries who are independently notable (Such as the Dune Sandworm or the Mongolian Deathworm), on real-life worms, or are using the term "worm" as in people worming their way into something, not in discussion of the animal. I see no evidence that this topic is notable independently due to lacking discussion as a set, failing WP:LISTN and INDISCRIMINATE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Lists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of fictional invertebrates as WP:ATD. In its current state, it is an indiscriminate list. If inclusion criteria were reduced to notable entries, it would be extremely small and a separate page would not be necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fictional depictions of worms Rublamb (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim/improve or split and merge: There is some coverage on the fictional worms as a group.The non-list article Fictional depictions of worms points us to The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art, p. 439, which has half a page exactly on our topic. And there is "Trent Walters (2005), "Snakes and Worms", The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy, vol. 2, Greenwood Press, p. 729, ISBN 978-0-313-32950-0" as listed in the references, which I cannot access, though. If inclusion criterea are defined, like keeping blue links and those entries based on secondary sources, this would solve the WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. And looking at the amount of blue links, we would still have significantly more than 10 entries, and therefore a list is justified in my view. The other consideration is that in modern usage we distinguish two types of worms, even though they may have the same word root: Those inspired by real-world invertebrate earthworms and the like, and the non-flying, dragon-like/reptilian worms derived from wyrms. Do we want to keep them together based mostly on the word "worm"? Or do we want to split those two types? If the latter, I would be find to merge the relevant earthworm-type entries to List of fictional invertebrates, and distribute the relevant wyrm-type entries among Lists of dragons if they are not already present. And in that case I guess redirect to Fictional depictions of worms and include a note there where both types can be found listed. Daranios (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earthworms and Ecological Processes, p. 244, is an interesting case of a short commentary in an academic source which both summarizes the topic and refers to our Wikipedia list here. Not completely sure how to deal with that. Is there a guideline for such a case? It's not really WP:CIRCULAR, as the source draws a conclusion from the article content rather than just reproducing it, but it's not a comment on Wikipedia itself either. Daranios (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional invertebrates and Germanic dragon, with the subsequent redirect pointing to List of fictional invertebrates - While they may have the same etymological root for their name, the dragon-like creatures from folklore, and fictional characters based on the real world animals are not really the same topic and should not be covered together in a single list. Notable examples of the dragon-type that are not already listed at the Germanic dragon article should be merged there. As for the actual blue-linked entries here, many of them are either for examples of the dragon-like entities, entries that are repeated several times throughout the list, or just redirects to broader topics and not actually notable examples - once those are removed, the remaining blue linked entries that point to their own articles can be moved over to the List of fictional invertebrates. Rorshacma (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional invertebrates has its own problems with regards to meeting notability for a stand-alone list article and currently has zero sources. It makes more sense to merge into Fictional depictions of worms as that has the needed context for this list article. Either that, or Fictional depictions of worms could be merged into this article. Rublamb (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is a shared name list of a wide variety of often unlike things. It's not a proper topic. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Pug

AfDs for this article:

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

I was surprised that this character from Men in Black has his own article. This character appears in the first MIB, and his most significant role is in MIIB. He doesn't appear at all in MIB³. WP:GNG is questionable, the sourcing in this article is not great, Screen Rant is marginally reliable and I am unsure what ref 4 is exactly. From a Google search I could only really find fandom coverage. The article also violates WP:NOTPLOT, as only his role in the films is written about. I don't think this article should be deleted, but instead redirected to his biggest role, which is MIIB. As much as I love this little guy, the original AfD nomination prediction from 2008 turned out to be correct. 'This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist.' 11WB (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Animal. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly anything found about this character [1] was the closest to a RS I could find. Sourcing isn't the article isn't quite enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Men in Black (1997 film). It's his first appearance, and I can't see any other mergeable content on Frank's page worth preserving. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuego XII

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

Lacking notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Horse racing, and Spain. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are adequate. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yak skiing

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

I can't find any evidence of this beyond the single Time article and other articles based on it. I could not find photos or videos anywhere, which is odd for an activity targeting tourists (though the Hindi Wikipedia has a link to a defunct Youtube page).

Either way, this appears to be more of tourist novelty then a sport, and I'm not sure its sufficiently notable. Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 23:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sports, and Himachal Pradesh. Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 23:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky Flames

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, best I could find is a passing mention by USA Today. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, Education, and Sports. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liberty Flames and Lady Flames. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some coverage exists, see here, here, and here. Apparently, this mascot has had several different names over the years, while maintaining the same basic eagle persona throughout. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Ejgreen77. NotJamestack (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep per sources provided above which show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am not convinced by the coverage in sources, which appears WP:TRIVIAL, and does not demonstrate standalone notability. I believe that a section in Liberty Flames and Lady Flames can easily encompass the mascot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. Even with the sources found, it would be WP:OR to create an article about several different mascots under several different names. They would be more appropriate to be grouped at the main article about the team, but all the mascots individually fail WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mane 'n Tail

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

The article is less about the product and more about its sponsorships, which could fall under WP:PROMOTION. MarcusAbacus (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Products. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is just a stub at this point, however the product is well known and has a cult following. I'll work on the article a little later. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as more information is added, it can warrant being kept in the mainspace. MarcusAbacus (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I've twice spent a lot of time trying to locate reliable sources of actual reviews or articles about Mane 'n Tail from a horseman's perspective. Unfortunately, the internet is flooded with online sellers of equine products which are skewing the results. That, coupled with the company's mass online marketing campaigns, means those older articles and reviews have been buried under dozens of pages of e-commerce search results. Though I know the RS coverage is out there, I don't have the time to work further on this. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did a search within specific sites. This from NYT looks quite promising. Another from NYT says: "“If it works, women are going to buy it, whether it’s made for men or made for animals, like the horse mane shampoo,” said Ms. Probst, referring to equine shampoos like Mane ’n Tail that grew popular among women in the 1990"s. This and this is about that phenomenon, but only mentions M&T, another. Short one. This is paywalled, but with a promising introduction. Same here. What about this? Is Into the Gloss reliable? [2] Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library is not working for me lately. I now googled simply "mane n' tail" news from 1994 and got [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Not all of equine, I mean equal quality, but... Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I now did a similar search for 1995 and foud [9], [10], as well as smaller [11] [12]. Americans might need to remove the "eu" at the start of the URL. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Outside input on Geschichte's sources requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems I forgot to actually vote earlier. Yes, many of those sources found by Geschichte are reliable sources and, taking the collection as a whole, they definitely make the product notable by Wikipedia standards. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:25, 27 August 2025 (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]