Deletion of List of wild animals given human names

Comment: this fails . As Shoy notes, it is an unmaintainable list (scope too large). Moreover, even if named wild animals was a notable topic (plausible, but needs sources), it would not follow that a list of those would be notable - most likely, the parent article could discuss a few examples following RS analysis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL)

Comment: per ; I don't think readers would expect to find such a list in an encyclopedia. This topic has not been the subject of independent inquiry and appears to be trivia and / or original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: I proposed the article for deletion using the same notability rationale as {{u|Velella}}. As I told {{u|Bodiddly23}}, according to point 6 of |Wikipedia is not a directory -> Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: Cross-categories like animals and human names are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Since the author thinks that that is the case, I asked him to search for sources to justify its inclusion, but I agree with Velella that the link to the blog is clearly not enough to establish the needed in-depth coverage from multiples |reliable sources independent of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:RS)