- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No Consensus to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Exotic pet (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unsourced, poor-quality (listing-type) article, that has been around since 2012. Apart from lacking sources, some of the suggested animals are commonly kept as pets (rabbits/hares, "Lagomorpha"); rodents are also commonly kept as pets. Keeping a lizard in a terrarium is also not that uncommon either. To sum it up: this article lacks references, and to me looks like a collection of animals the origiinal author (who no longer edits here thought were uncommon. Given the additional problem that the article is probably biased (towards an European or US-viewpoint), I propose we delete it. Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
- Comment: In the pet/veterinary world, any pet other than a domestic cat or dog is termed "exotic". Exotics include big cats, foxes, rabbits, birds, rodents, reptiles, fish, bush babies, sugar gliders, skunks, monkeys, insects, and others. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how uncommon or unusual they are. Part of the issue is that few vets are as familiar with the exotics as they are with cats and dogs. I'm not saying the article should or shouldn't be kept, just that part of the rationale may not be valid. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The enwiki article shows there is room to make this topic work, and the frwiki article shows that the concept is spreading a bit culturally. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We are very far away from these articles: EnWP and FRWP raise many issues (such as legality, but also being hurt or killed by your pet which turned out to be a wild animal; these pets spreading certain diseases; legal issues in keeping such an animal; moral issues in buying or selling it). While they do point out that anthing not a cat or a dog is exotic, I wrote in my rationmale above that certain of these animals (rabbits, guinea pigs, perhps bids or fish) are "common enough" to not be considereed "exotic" any more. If the article is indeed kept, I would expect a similar depth/completeness to the EnWP or FrWP one. What we currently have is a "list of animals other than cats and dogs, which are sometimes kept as pets.". There is a smaöö böurb, but it doesn't point out any of the issues that come with having a non-cat-non-dog-type animal as a pet. --Eptalon (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no deadline to be complete. A stub is a perfectly acceptable state of being for an article. An article can not be deleted just because it is not finished. Rfd is not for cleanup. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats true, but while we are discussing, we might add the two-three sentences as well. Fainlty reminds me of the 'X is a place in Y' articles, where most will stay that way forever....--Eptalon (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no content to this page. The list is completely phoney, and wrong in several ways. For example, some have been kept for many generations as pets, and are capable of being real pets (by which I mean can have meaningful relationships with humans). Obvious examples are certain parrots, mice & rats, rabbits, hamsters... Others on the list can have no meaningful relationship with humans, and are simply animals imprisoned for the sake of it. You ever had a relationship with a shark? There is no rationale, and no groundwork for this page. It's just "whatever I happened to think of", and not too intelligently either. Obviously, the term "exotic" needs to be carefully thought out. It's not a self-evident term. Delete this page, but remain open to a better and more intelligent approach. As it is, the page is a disincentive to any sensible editor who feel like putting in the real work. Pages can be so bad that it's best to throw them in the basket, and hope someone does better next time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This request is due to close on 20:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.