Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black cat analogy


 * 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   keep. No prejudice against possible rename or merge as suggested by 23.28.85.229. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Black cat analogy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been completely unsourced for almost a year, and not because of laziness. There is no way to source this. Googling "black cat analogy" gives nothing besides the following viral image on various content aggregators. Being mentioned in r/atheism posts does not confer notability. ZigSaw 23:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced OR essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per above. If a couple of WP:RS's can be found, then we could merge it into List of Internet phenomena, but that's a big "if", at least from my attempts at finding any.  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  05:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: With the new sources (only two, but reliable sources nonetheless), it seems to be fine now, and a lot more than just the viral image.  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  15:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are references to this in reliable sources. What matters is discussions of black cats, not google hits for the specific phrase "black cat analogy", and discussion occurs in several books. The first reference in particular has a detailed discussion of the analogy; the second traces it to Ernest Gellner. Being unreferenced or unsourced is not grounds for deletion if sources exists. The article could be improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per colapeninsula Greg Bard (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - As Colapeninsula has shown, sources definitely exist. Moswento talky 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I guess Colapeninsula's established some degree of verifiability. However, it's not really established why this analogy is notable as opposed to the hundreds of others used by philosophers on a regular basis. Moreover, most of the sources that are now in the article are tangentially relavant at best; it might be more apt to move it to Cat metaphors in philosophy or merge with a related article. 23.28.85.229 (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.