Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonsai Kitten


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bonsai Kitten

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. The reason given on the article's talk page was "I enjoyed the hoax, too. But does wikipedia need to be a repository of every little popular snippet of the Internet? [...] The thing is not even live any more [...] I think there is actually some dynamic where the presence of crap reduces the time spent on worthwhile topics." (I trimmed some colorful language I considered irrelevant; feel free to visit the talk page if you want the full comment. I have chosen to AGF and treat the IP's concern as a genuine one; looking at the article, it's probably worth the debate.  I am neutral for now.)  Shi  meru  22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject meets our general notability guideline as there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Two examples are this from Wired and this from USA Today. Like Shimeru I feel this nomination was made in good faith but I declined to complete it because I think the subject is notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * references are from 8 years ago and the subject was topical then. Should every little snippet that made a news story of some thing on the Internet be preserved in WP?  Not encyclopedic.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.35.39 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. Significant coverage is significant coverage no matter how old it is. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I like to be flippant, but really, this is cruft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.35.39 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept consensus to keep, move to close, by originator. I am the only one voting to get rid of it. I admit to a minor amount of provocation in getting rid of this, but also really think the Project is too crufty and Internet meme and pop culture focused.  (while having poor quality on obvious core areas of history and the like.)  however, since not a single person agreed with me, let's close the bonsai Kitten AFD.  The more fundamental concern is interesting, but can be adressed elsewhere. (IOW, I concede the battle not the war.) -Teh IP 72.82.39.78 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The searches above clearly show notability per WP:GNG ie several newspaper articles and suchlike, with significant coverage. So, fix it, don't delete it.  Chzz  ► 02:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I definitely remember this being a hit when it was popular. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Verifiable sources confirm notability. Look at these first 10 Gnews hits: Inniverse (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Register (UK), Jan 26, 2001
 * The Register (UK), Feb. 10, 2001
 * New York Post, Feb 12, 2001
 * USA Today, Feb 20, 2001
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jul 18, 2001
 * USA Today, Feb 8, 2002
 * The People, Jul 21, 2002
 * New Straits Times, Nove. 10, 2003
 * Adrants - Feb 26, 2007
 * NetworkWorld.com, Oct 16, 2009


 * Keep. This hoax received significant coverage at the time. Some sources decribe who was behind it, others describe why it was successful. One source lists it among the best/worst internet hoaxes. So a claim of notability is met, and a useful encyclopedia article can be written on this topic. I note that the resultant FBI investigation is not even mentioned in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:01, 3 July 2010 (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.