Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empathy in chickens

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 merge to Emotion in animals. The general consensus is that this topic is not suitable as a standalone article and would be better off in the context of the existing Emotion in animals article. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy in chickens[edit]

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

There's no cohesive article here. The vast majority of it isn't about the topic purported by the article's title, "Empathy in chickens". Breaking it down:

"The ability of chickens to experience and share empathy is recognized; empathy is not a uniquely human trait. This ability is a form of emotional intelligence and is demonstrated in a hen’s apparent signs of anxiety when they observed their chicks in distressful situations; they have been said to “feel their chicks’ pain” and to “be affected by, and share, the emotional state of another.” OK, though it's kind of trivial that in many species mothers protect their young, hardly worth an encyclopedia article for just one species where that's true.

"Hens have been observed to play; they are considered smart and emotional." This isn't about empathy.

"Chickens have the capacity to form “close friendships.”" This is about friendship, not empathy.

"A hen is keenly aware of the courting behavior of a rooster, and responds to his vocalizing." This is about mating rituals, not empathy.

Then there's an entire quotation that's about chickens being intelligent, having fun, being capable of facial recognition, and having the faculty of object permanence, not about them being empathetic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into emotion in animals as a broad treatment seems the best place to start. Splitting to particular species and types of emotion can then happen in due course when appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the author of this article I was surprised to see some of the content that has been added since my last edit. I'm not really understanding some of what is written at this point and will need to go back and try to evaluate the sources.

Bfpage |leave a message 20:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comment - I have added a few more sources. I thought newspaper articles were considered reliable secondary sources showing that the topic of the article was notable.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into emotion in animals or chicken. I don't see the need for this, and I'm normally the one defending small obscure articles. Really, 'chickens understand mating behavior and can make friends' doesn't need its own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • edits) 01:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with emotion in animals. Per WP:MILL it makes no encyclopaedic sense to have an article for every species and every emotion combination. It is just a flawed approach. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the salvageable material with Emotion in animals. There's nothing that's fundamentally non-complaint about the article but it's just not convincingly established that the subject is comprehensive or autonomous enough to warrant separate treatment. GraniteSand (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2015 (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.