Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Cat (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Cat
While notable, this article is unable to meet both WP:V and WP:BLP simultaneously, due to the only legitimate reference available being a violation of the subject's privacy. Nomination from the article's original author. kotra 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you proide a proof of this "violation of privacy claim"? Mukadderat 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. Dr. Cat exists. Nonverifiable real name may be deleted. If there is a real (legally confirmed) violation of privacy, then the person themselves may appeal (I don't know where, please advice), and the article may be deleted from  the database for good (now the deleted article can still be seen by wikipedia sysops) and recreated without privacy violation. Mukadderat 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Dr. Cat discussion. Mukadderat 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think Dr. Cat/David Shapiro definitely meets notability requirements. I'm not sure why there is this big discussion over whether to include his real or original name - if there are verifiable sources as to his real name, and he has not requested that it be kept secret, what's the big deal? --Brianyoumans 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The issue is not notability, as I mentioned earlier. I agree, though, that the most logical thing would be to get Dr. Cat's direct opinion. However, I don't wish to call his attention to this article, because to be honest, it's an embarrassment (to both him and myself). Perhaps I should bite the bullet and ask him anyway, since my word doesn't seem to be sufficient (justifiably)... It's frustrating to have written and defended this article for so long and yet be unable to delete it when I feel there is no chance of it meeting Wikipedia policy. -kotra 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, less than a month since the last AfD is a bit early to AfD an article again, even when the last one ended with no consensus. Secondly, AfD is not cleanup: We're here discussing whether the topic is fit for discussion in Wikipedia, so it's all about the notability of the person, which I don't think is in question here. Facts that cannot be verified can be removed without deletion of the entire article, but the person's accomplishments are not in doubt. I have no idea whether birth names qualify as "invasion of privacy" etc.; that should be verified with the subject. If it's objectionable and wrong, then the information can be removed or even specific offending revisions may be deleted, but the article as a whole should remain. (I would find it hardly fitting that member of the game industry would stoop to same tricks as certain mr. Thompson, though... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not the only reason to AfD an article. An article may be nominated for deletion if it cannot hope to meet guidelines. Specifically, I do not believe this article can meet both WP:V and WP:BIO at the same time. The problem is that the only verifiable (despite being slightly incorrect) source available for this article puts forth his birth name. You and I may personally find nothing private about birth names, but that is irrelevant. If the information is removed, then the article is no longer verifiable. This is not something that can simply be resolved through discussion or cleanup, which is why, after weeks of careful deliberation, I decided to put it up for AfD. I understand that it hasn't been long since the last AfD, but I didn't anticipate a problem, due to the issue being completely different from the previous one. -kotra 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - since the information is publicly available, there's no violation of privacy. WilyD 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not because of privacy or verifiability, but simple notability. The founder of a small company of seven employees is simply not notable for having done so; the company itself seems barely notable.  bikeable (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable person --Peephole 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, privacy concerns are irrelevant. This appears to be a bad faith nomination attempting to solve a content dispute. The bottom line is that if "Dr. Cat" has a real name and it can be verified, then this is fair game.  That said, the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.  If not for the questionable nomination, I would probably opine delete because this article should have never been created in the first place.--Isotope23 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Privacy concerns are relevant. See Biographies of living persons. As for bad faith, I specifically went this route instead of WP:PROD, as I had originally intended, because I was aware that route may have been considered bad faith. Despite the unusual nature of this AfD, I had hoped people would assume good faith. -kotra 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that his real name is a matter of public record. I don't seen any reason to ignore a valid source that ties "Dr. Cat" to a given name.  I've stricken the bad faith part above.  Your reasons for going this route are your own and I don't really have any reason to assume this was bad faith.  I still don't think a valid deletion reason was given in the nomination though.--Isotope23 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. He exists, and it isn't just a small company. It's possibly the largest furry (although that could be disputed) community on the world wide web, with members that reach currently about 60,000, with around 2,000 to 4,000 members on at one time. Perhaps just make a redirection of his real name to the page, while listing somewhere that he publicly goes by the name Dr. Cat, and keeping the title as Dr. Cat. Disinclination 09:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (just barely). I still don't really understand the WP:BIO issue; it seems to me that the policy is designed to protect truly personal details of a person's life (e.g. relationships, children, sex etc). Certainly people may have different opinions about what is "private" information, but a person's name is minimum basic information for an encyclopedia article - even if (or especially if) the article is written about an alias. That being said, I also don't believe that this issue is really relevant to the AfD discussion.  I think it's a weak keep based on notability.Qball6 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep' please mobygames is a reliable source so this meets verifiability really Yuckfoo 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not the verifiability of MobyGames. Sorry about my unclear explanation. -kotra 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per wwwwolf. It is late in the game to ask, but I would prefer to see Kotra specify what his or her concerns are, I am not seeing any conflicts (at all) under our biographical guidelines with the retention of this article.  RFerreira 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the only somewhat reliable source (MobyGames) that is able to be referenced for much of the notability of the subject displays his birth name, which the subject has gone to lengths to keep out of the public eye. So, by prominently making reference to such information, I feel that it goes against WP:LIVING, specifically "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." His birth name is not relevant to his notability in this case. Also, "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm'." I believe that this is a borderline case and an unusual one, which is probably why I haven't been able to get my point across very well. That and my lack of indisputable proof to back up my claims (although I think that it's apparent from his never mentioning his birth name, even in professional endeavors). I probably made a mistake in AfDing this, but thank you all for commenting and sharing your views. -kotra 07:12, 8 September 2006 (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.