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 No consensus. Rlevse 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of funny animals in media[edit]

Ill-defined, POV, unencyclopaedic and ummaintainable list. Fails against many parts of WP:NOT Nuttah68 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:NOT at it's very best. Agree with nominator. Computerjoe 's talk 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - don't you mean delete? -- Whpq 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Delete. Computerjoe 's talk 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inherently POV list with no well defined inclusion criteria. -- Whpq 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'Funny' is not well-defined. I also have to wonder whether people would be included; after all, some people consider them to be animals (AfD is not the place to start a debate on that, so don't). Keep Neutral; apparently, this is a technical term. Of course, we'd want to restrict it to non-human animals, then. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that: (A) all mammals are animals; and (B) all humans are mammals; therefore: (C) all humans are animals. -- Black Falcon 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I just enjoy people's reactions (in person, not online) when they "discover" (ruffled feathers and all) that biologically humans are animals (this is not directed to you of course--not that I'm not saying you're not a human and animal; wait... ah, never mind, I hope you get my point ). My comment was more in jest rather than a serious attempt to logically establish a biological fact, which is really a pointless exercise because the word "animal" has multiple meanings. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem since not all humans are funny. Otto4711 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A moot argument since Funny animal doesn't include humans anyway. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While "funny" is not well-defined, funny animal is a term of art used for anthropomorphic animals in cartooning. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The word "funny" in the title is not an adjective to "animals". "Funny animals" is an independently established concept all by itself. -- Black Falcon 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an instance where the extensive categorization scheme that has developed for anthropomorphic animals (Category:Anthropomorphism and various of its subcats) better serves Wikipedia than a list almost completely devoid of context that, were it ever to be completed, would contain tens of thousands of entries. Someone doing research on the topic of cartoon animals is IMHO unlikely to find this indiscriminate list, scooping up any animated non-human animal without regard to the medium in which it appears, a valuable research tool. Otto4711 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how Category:Anthropomorphism could do the same job as this article. The article serves a good purpose and seems to meet all Wikipedia policies for an article to be allowed to exist. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the categories don't do the same job as the list. The categories do a better job than the list. Otto4711 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I please inquire as to how exactly they do that? Do they, like this list, separate by the studio which produced it? No. Just like the category, this list can be edited to include only entries with existing articles. Were the category ever to be completed (like this list), it too would have tens of thousands of entries, so that is not a real distinction. Also, why should delete an article now for a problem that may or may not arise in the future?

One of your comments puzzles me. You write that this list operates "without regard to the medium in which it appears". Really? What about the sections titled "Comic books", "Comic strips", "Feature Films", "Video games", and so on?

There is something else that bothers me. You write that "the extensive categorization scheme that has developed for anthropomorphic animals ... better serves Wikipedia than a list". Better serves Wikipedia? Exactly what does that mean. Is the purpose of Wikipedia simply to exist? Or is it to be a resource for people around the world to use? For if it's the latter, I fail to understand the rationale behind your comment. Not everyone finds categories easier to use than lists, and I'm sure you know that. So, in sum, I fail to see what reason there could be for desiring the elimination of the article. -- Black Falcon 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a highly indiscriminate list, agree with above that Category:Anthropomorphism better serves the purpose. Krimpet 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a reduced version with funny animal, which is little more than a stub. Remove video games, non-cartoon feature films etc. There's no evidence that they are commonly referred to as belonging to this genre.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nydas. JamesMLane t c 10:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list.--Hobit 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Umaintainable list? then you have to also contend with the other other "Umaintainable" list in wikipeadia such as the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animated_feature_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_action_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stop-motion_films

lets include the rest of the Films by genre list. The Funny animal list is supposed to serve the same purpose as the examples listed.

Anthropomorphism is define as giving human qualites to a non-human object, its just too broad. I am open to other ideas... Possiblyyourbestfriend 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total junk, and a pov mess. Booshakla 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this POV? Funny animal is well-defined. Serves as a supplement to the categories, as I'm getting lost in them and all I have found are categories of media that contain anthropomorphism, not the actual characters themselves. –Pomte 09:24, 7 March 2007 (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.