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. W.marsh 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal sounds[edit]

List of animal sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reads like original research, entirely unreferenced as well. Also, if wikipedia is not a dictionary, then is it also not a place for lists of dictionary definitions? I feel somewhat bad nominating this, as it seems well intentioned. It also survived an earlier AfD over 1 year ago, but as the culture of Wikipedia has changed over time, it might be time to revisit this. Jayron32 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but require each entry to be referenced. --Duk 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Trans-wiki: to WikiDictionary. Somehow.--SeizureDog 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I don't share the faith Duk has for references. The idea that you can just simply categorize all the sounds a species makes with one all-purpose word also sounds preposterous to me. hateless 06:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  shouldn't be too hard, a bunch are in my dictionary. I find the page useful. Similar referencing requirements are on List of nicknames used by George W. Bush and Inherently funny word (I think).--Duk 06:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. There exists a venue for this, and it is called Wiktionary. It doesn't need to be here, since it is not an encyclopedia article, it is a dictionary article. --Jayron32 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep and cull: This might be vaguely useful for very specific sounds for specific animals, but this is by and large a list of onomatopoeia. - Che Nuevara 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into each animal's article and then Delete Nashville Monkey 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Generally I agree with Nashville Monkey about merging, but I do find it helpful to have all these in one page. If WikiDictionary can be setup with categories of animal sounds, that would do the trick. If not, then I think the article should stand as-is. Referencing each word would be quite ugly for someone attempting to read the text (especially with a screen reader). It might be better to verify each entry with one source and reference that source--ideally the WikiDictionary and cross-link to it. It's unruly, but useful, especially for writers. --Willscrlt 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Trans-wiki if possible and Delete This nature of this article makes it unfit for an encyclopedia. TSO1D 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Duk. Danny Lilithborne 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep its encyclopedic enough==keep and expandDGG 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Of encyclopedic value. --Oakshade 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and how exactly would one reference each sound? I strongly disagree that Wikipedia should be a collection of noises. This basically fails WP:V in some places as well. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  and how exactly would one reference each sound?. see Wp:cite --Duk 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me your pedantic rejoinders, you fully comprehend what I mean. When you produce reliable sources that show a strong unity of agreement on the noises claimed in that article I'll conceed it's of value. Hypothetical claims of "possible to source" do not make for a keep. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely unverifiable. I say my dog says "Woof", you say your dog says "Wooof". Who decides? Moreschi 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for the kiddies. This is their encyclopedia too.  The Transhumanist   13:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Onomatopoeia. WMMartin 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — References would be helpful, of course, but each language's rendering of animal sounds is vital linguistic information, especially with respect to the study of language acquisition by children. Chenx064 22:58, 8 December 2006 (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.