Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual animal anecdotes
on the basis of  which states "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way."  A well-researched and documented trivia page, to be sure, but a trivia nonetheless.  I appreciate that the author has taken the time to do the sourcing and citations that should be part of any Wikipedia article, and it is copiously researched.  And yes, it seems harsh to delete something well-documented when there are so many pages on Wikipedia that aren't at all documented.  Finally, I commend the author for his candor-- this is indeed a collection of "unusual animal anecdotes".  But where is it going?  What's the point, other than assembling some amusing and unrelated anecdotes in chronological order?  It reminds me of the old Ripley's Believe It or Not books of later years, which consisted of something like 128 days worth of columns in a 128 page paperback.  Entertaining, yes, encyclopedic, no
— User:Mandsford, 00:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:TRIVIA (Wikipedia:Manual of Style)