Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism spectrum in animals

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 delete‎. Consensus is that there are not enough reliable sources to make the existence of the topic verifiable. Sandstein 08:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autism spectrum in animals[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As established at Talk:Autism_spectrum_in_animals#Misrepresentation_of_sources there is no reliable source for the existence of autism or autism spectrum conditions in animals – neither as an observation nor as an idea/concept/hypothesis. (Note that there are animal models of autism, which is not the same and already covered in a well-sourced standalone article.) TempusTacet (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. TempusTacet (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is irrelevant whether there is any example or reliable evidence of autism spectrum in animals, merely that the topic of it has reliable sources. High quality refs commenting on junk science or lay-public misunderstandings are completely sufficient to make the topic notable. DMacks (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no such sources have been presented and I could not find any.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found a ref:
Vallortigara, Giorgio; Snyder, Allan; Kaplan, Gisela; Bateson, Patrick; Clayton, Nicola S.; Rogers, Lesley J. (February 19, 2008). "Are Animals Autistic Savants". PLOS Biology. 6 (2): e42. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060042.
This topic isn't my field, so I don't know this ref's quality, but it looks secondary as WP:MEDRS, with an impressive list of notable authors from multiple research groups (and it's it's definitely not from Grandin). This article was widely highlighted and discussed in science-commentary websites and similar publications. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. However, this source is already used in the article as it is the topic of the podcast episode that has remained as the only somewhat credible source. This source is not concerned with "autism in animals" but investigates the question: "Do animals sometimes show forms of extreme (though, of course, different) cognitive skills confined to particular domains that resemble those shown by autistic savants?" which is apparently a claim made by Temple Grandin (who wrote a long and detailed commentary/response that is presented alongside the article in the link you shared). As far as I can see, neither Grandin nor the authors ever claim that animals "are autistic" or autism (as a condition) exists in animals. The claim is that (potentially) animals exhibit cognitive features similar to that of autistic savants, which certainly could be discussed in an article on animal cognition but is very different from ideas like "my dog has autism".--TempusTacet (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the podcast episode's title is the only mention of the term "Animal Autism" in a reliable source and for all we know the Grandin book and the PLoS paper that was written in response (and is arguably not really about "animal autism") are the only time this idea seems to have been discussed
Again, we only need sources that the topic is discussed, not that the topic has a basis in reality. The article titled "Are Animals Autistic Savants", with statements such as "Hence, we disagree with the claim that animals are similar to autistic savants" is obviously an article about the idea of animals actually having some sort of autistism, even if only to the extent to debunk it or distinguish between certain behaviors and an underlying cause. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that contested or debunked claims can be the topic of articles but autism is significantly more complex than exhibiting particular styles of thinking. (Exhibiting "autistic" traits and behaviors, as a large part of the general population does (see eg the concept of the broad autism phenotype), does not make one autistic.) The statement that "Whether autism exists in animals is a contested claim", as the article currently does, is just not true. No reliable source has claimed anything like that, except perhaps for the headline (but not the description) of the podcast episode. Autism is very much a human condition. The article could be moved to a title such as "similarities in cognitive processing between autistic savants and animals", which would then cover a scientific debate presumably sparked by Grandin's book, but I assume this discussion is not notable on its own and best covered in an article on animal cognition and/or cognition in autistic people.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only ref I could find. And [1] from five years later notes "I could only find one study that rigorously addressed the question, "Do Animals Think like Autistic Savants?"", and that study is this PLOS one. So I think that is a good example of that PLOS being a strong source but one that is substantially in response to Grandin. Unless there are others, either from some other group of authors (multiple sources and research groups==notable topic) or more recent (ongoing interest and work==notability not transient interest), I would lean merge. Choice of target is best left to others who know this field better than I do. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant autism article (perhaps the main one itself). All this says is that it's hypothesized to exist in animals, and based one one paper and a podcast. I don't show notability for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aren't any RS in here, so I'm not sure what content from here is worth merging?

The PLoS article is not about whether specific animals have autism,. it's where animals in general think the same way that autistic savants do (and the article concludes no, but as @DMacks rightly points out, that doesn't necessarily matter here).

There are some unreliable sources that talk about animals being autistic, but there isn't the kind of RS debunking them that would be necessary for an article on the contested or debunked claim; to make an article about that, it seems like WP:OR would be required. (I did search for these RS and found nothing). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough MEDRS to make this a notable topic in its own right. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or strong keep: If you can’t find major ways of sources, especially the medical to cite on Wikipedia then please merge rather than delete: it’s better to merge this rather than erase! Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no appropriate RS (and MEDRS has a significantly higher bar than regular RS), there is nothing to merge. Some random podcast is not good enough for notability. In the case of medical topics, it is definitely better to TNT something and recreate it later if sourcing is found than to keep inaccurate, potentially harmful material. AryKun (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @Chamaemelum there is now some coverage of research on autistic traits in animals (or claims thereof) that could potentially be sufficient for an article autistic traits in animals, see the discussion on Talk:Autism spectrum in animals. But as we've established in the discussions here and over there, that's a topic distinct from "autism in animals".--TempusTacet (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scientists are supposed to think freely and generate new theories, but we need to base our articles on evidence. I wouldn't merge anything beyond the question being a topic of debate. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm not opposing the creation of autistic traits in animals using some of these sources, but I'm hesitant to suggest a merge to a non-existent article, using material written with a different scope in mind. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: Just FYI the article has been entirely rewritten since it was created and one could say that the current article's content does not match its title. So while I would generally share your concern I don't believe it applies in this situation.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I disagree. The current version is sorta' in between the old scope and the proposed one. To much space and weight is given to Grandin's theories. The lede suggests that the claim is "contested", yet by the end of the body we learn that there is no evidence that animals have autism. "Move" is as far as I can tell not a valid AfD-vote, and I hesitate to !vote "Keep and rename" given my concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me that feels like arguing about a technicality but I'm also not sufficiently familiar with the deletion process and its consequences. It seems obvious to me that the content in the article will find a place in either an article or a section about "autistic traits in animals" independently of the decision regarding "autism spectrum in animals", which an overwhelming majority here agrees is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Of course, the lead sentence would need to be changed to reflect the new topic and content of the article. A couple of sentences regarding Grandin's work (who's a major figure & whose claims have sparked a scientific debate) doesn't seem too much weight to me but that could (and has to) be discussed & resolved independently of a merge or move or deletion decision.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge I do not think that there should be an article which has a title implying autism definitely exists in animals. However, there is lots of research on autistic traits in animals so I think the page could be just be called "autistic traits in animals" instead. Alternatively, it could be merged into animal models for autism. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep/Rename - This article contains high level sourcing could be merged into Animal model of autism or a subsection of Autism spectrum. Justwatchmee (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to what autism article, I'm not sure). There are enough sources here to make a reasonably-referenced subsection in a large treatment, but blowing it up into a separate article seems somewhat strained. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add: to suggest a specific merge target, I think the main article (Autism spectrum) would do. Animal model of autism has a different focus, and combination of these two may be misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between Delete, Keep, Merge and Rename, I don't see a consensus on how this discussion should be closed. If suggesting a Merge, please specify target article that you think would be most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move to Autistic traits in animals is a good solution. It accurately reflects the sources, does not lead to further confusion between animal models of autism and the observation of "autistic traits" in animals, and does not imply that animals can "have autism". There are probably more studies/reports where animal behavior has been described as "autistic" or compared to autistic behaviors that can be added to the article over time.--TempusTacet (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move an article being discussed at an AFD. It makes the discussion closure more complicated. If the article is Kept, then a discussion can occur on the article talk page and what its title should be. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying @Chamaemelum who performed the move.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autism is a profoundly human disorder and it is hard to see how it could even be diagnosed in animals. If there were sufficient high quality sources here I could see an article being warranted, but I don't think that's the case. I'm highly sceptical of the hypothetical target for the merger for similar reasons. At best, both articles seem to have a major WP:FRINGE issue. I'll also note the two votes at the merge discussion at Talk:Animal model of autism so far both point out that there's no real material to be merged. An assessment with which I am inclined to agree. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a human disorder and has never been diagnosed in animals. Since there are relevant studies and coverage on autistic traits in animals, but not autism itself, then what do you think about re-naming the article to "Autistic traits in animals", which doesn't imply animals have autism? Additionaly, I agreed with the comments on Animal Model of Autism at the time. Now, however, the page is much better and has sourced, reliable information. Chamaemelum (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would improve the situation, no. If you can't diagnose autism in animals, calling any traits those animals have "autistic" is a form of anthropomorphism at best. Hence my calling it a FRINGE issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those who think of deleting anything related to this particular article on Wikipedia need to rethink that. Merging with similar articles is better than deleting it off English Wikipedia altogether, so I’d understand those who feel like this article should be deleted, but there are better ways. I agree, however, that not enough reliable sources exist at this point but the subject is highly controversial and disputed between animal medical people or veterinarians and psychiatric/psychologist people and experts with autism. I’ve been studying this since September 14, 2006 although information references have changed since through now. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source to back up your claim that "the subject is highly controversial and disputed between animal medical people or veterinarians and psychiatric/psychologist people and experts with autism". Several people with knowledge (and, I would assume, academic training) in at least some of these areas have tried to find sources and have failed to do so.--TempusTacet (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is autistic traits in animals, it has nothing to do with calling animals autistic: it's discussing a particular trait, not actual autism. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a distinction without a difference to me. Traits are only autistic in the sense that they're an aspect of autism. If there's no autism there's no autistic traits either. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Traits are only autistic in the sense that they're an aspect of human autism. If there's no autism in humans, there's no autistic traits in general. Since traits are only autistic in the sense that they're an aspect of human autism, it is totally possible that, since there is human autism, animals can have (and do have) autistic traits (that is, traits commonly seen in autistic people).

Analogy: plorg is defined as containing the combination of morp, borg, and flop characteristics. Plorg is observed only in Zorp. However, morp, a plorg characteristic, can be observed in non-Zorp because non-Zorp only have morp and not borg or flop. This means it is possible to have a characteristic of plog in non-Zorp even though plorg exists only within Zorp. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a dearth of reliable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the time it took to have this discussion could have been used to add the relevant it into another article or articles. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2023 (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.