Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief mouser to the cabinet office


 * 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. John254 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Chief mouser to the cabinet office

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable enough for a page of its own, I suggest moving it back to 10 Downing Street. Hera1187 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not notable according to what--your personal evaluation (or mine, I couldnt care less about it either),  of what is important? there are published sources in major newspapers, so the public thinks its important and we follow them. The outside world is the judge of notability. We just record it. DGG (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It has sources from 5 reputale media organisations. That is how we define notability and as such it is notable enough for an article. Woody (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I know it might seem slight and unimportant, but it is clearly notable and public interest in the subject is clearly there. Alberon (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by sources, probably split out of 10 Downing Street because that article is getting a bit big. Fosnez (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The refs do not show that each of the cats named in the succession box had the title claimed for it as "Chief mouser to the cabinet office." Several articles about several different cats do not prove the notability of the article's subject, and is an example of original research in the form of synthesis. A couple of the stories described one of the cats with the article's title, so the article could be redirected to that cat's article. The article uses one story's fanciful claim of official mousers at Downing Street back to Henry VIII's reign, but one ref says there has been an official cat (minus the title) since only 1929. Edison (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are about the cat, and I suggest re-reading the synthesis guidelines. The BBC article states that the nickname is sometimes used. I am sure that you can find more documents, most of them official Hansard documents pertaining to the cats. I think an argument could be made to move it to 10 Downing Street cat. The Henry VIII statement is highly dubious as there was no 10 Downing Street nor the position of PM back then. Yet the dubiousness (?) of a statement is not a reason to delete the article that contains it. Woody (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I could support a move to 10 Downing Street cat, but there are ample references for the topic.  I've added a couple Churchill-era cats with citations.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Fosnez and Woody. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it would seem somewhat silly to include this (amusing) article in one about a serious seat of government. It has notability and sources, what more do you want? It also has a nice furry tail, and who can argue with such a thing? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Can't understand the grounds for the nom. Notability is clear. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2008 (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.