Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf cat


 * 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 redirect to List of experimental cat breeds. "Delete and merge" is not possible because licensing, but this way editors can summarize / merge content from history to the extent consensus allows.  Sandstein  09:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Elf cat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete, but summarize at List of experimental cat breeds (which needs to happen anyway, even if this is kept). I spent about 6 hours trying to save this, but it's just not salvageable. All of the sources (that are actually pertinent to this alleged breed – it's actually an experimental crossbreed) are self-published, or otherwise unreliable. The low-end news bits I can find about it are all just regurgitation of the breeders' claims. This "breed" has no recognition by any breed registry other than Rare and Exotic Feline Registry, which exists solely to provide pedigree service for breeds rejected by or too new for the mainstream national and international registries. The article makes a claim of provisional recognition in The International Cat Association, but this at their site. A list of breeders showed only 8 in the world (all in the US, plus one in Canada) working with this crossbreed (maybe a dozen these days?), so this appears to fail the WP:NFT test. I did add the Daily Mail as a source, since it confirms one (but not the other) of the claimed breed originators' names, and the year the breed started. The rest of it's just rehash of promo materials. The ABC15.com (KNXV-TV) local news bit is worthless; just a profile of a local breeder, and reports promotional, pseudoscientific nonsense like the cats being hypoallergenic (claims also made and debunked about the mostly hairly Sphynx breed on which the Elf is based; people are allergic to an enzyme in cat saliva, and it has nothing to do with the hairs; these nude breeds actually have to have their skin cleaned regularly because sebaceous secretions and saliva get all gunked up on them). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC); updated: 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to the List of experimental cat breeds. This one has a number of secondary sources that are not notable. The problem with this one is that it may also be WP:TOOSOON. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Delete and merge' is impossible. If the content is merged, the history needs to stay here for attribution. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closer will know this equates to "merge and redirect". you probably meant "merge and redirect".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Elf cat is a recognised breed with ANCATS - Australian National Cats INC - although listed as experimental. A link to the National Breeds Standard has been added to the page. --MatthewRoland (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reputable Source added
 * Not a reputable source. That's a very small breeder club, with a grand total of 124 members,  of whom are Elf breeders. I.e., they've listed the Elf cat  anyone in Australia starts to breed them.  They seem to have added every claimed breed with a name. This is also worth a read; ANCats appears to exist solely as a cluster of people with grievances against the Australian Cat Federation. ACF and Coordinating Cat Council of Australia are the major organisations in Australia, both members of the World Cat Congress as are the other major organisations like TICA, CFA, GCCF, but not ANCats.  Also, ancats.com.au appears to be run off someone's home PC, given how slowly it loads.  I'm skeptical that we can treat a self-published site by breeders exiting the cat-breeding mainstream as a reliable source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC); updated: 02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional source listing the Elf as a recognised breed - the AICC - Australian Independent Cat Council has been added. --MatthewRoland (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Another non-notable organization, with even fewer breeders than ANCats. Only lists member breeders for 16 breeds total ( including the Elf) and publishes no breed standards.. Like ANCats, they basically just accept every named alleged breed as a possibility to register with them, "just in case" someone wants to.  The fact that someone can format a list of cat breeds and post it on a webpage for future use like this does nothing to help establish notability. Furthermore, the AICC site states that AICC uses the World Cat Federation (WCF) breed standards (same cite), and the Elf is not a WCF breed .  What's happening here (aside from desperation to retain a "too soon" article – see also WP:Usual caveats) is a confusion between what breeds or alleged breeds (populations or phenotypes) an organization will  pedigree registrations for, and which breeds an organization actually  as breeds subject to conformation standards and show competition.  Even many of the major international registries will  cats of no breed at all – mongrels classified as "domestic shorthair/longhair"  or lumped together as "household pets"  or "household cats"  – for pedigree registration (i.e., the organization's primary source of income) without  them as anything but random cats.  This is no different from a person, company, album, etc. being given passing mention in a list of people, companies, or albums, versus a secondary source writing an in-depth article on them.  "AICC accepts Elf registrations" doesn't demonstrate notability, only that someone aside from the breeders says that something called the Elf cat exists at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: It might be a designer crossbred at present, but it's a real "thing" even if not officially yet recognized as a standardized breed.  The policy here is notability, not acceptability.  I do agree that the self-published sources may be problematic (haven't reviewed them all yet, sometimes a selfpub source can be acceptable in limited circumstances), but there are enough independent third-party sources to verify that this crossbred exists and is of adequate notability to keep.   Montanabw (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't seem to be a thing.  Lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Elf Cat doesn't have as much recognition as the Sphynx or other more popular breeds shouldn't be a reason to delete the page, there are many other cat breeds that have less popularity than the Elf cat that are found in Wiki. A simple search for other hairless cats such as the Bambino and Ukrainiam Levkoy show pages listed such as:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambino_cat
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Levkoy
 * There are probably many other unregistered cat breeds listed within Wiki, I searched for these 2 only and both have their own pages with a lot less reference / citations.--MatthewRoland (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason for keeping an article either. I say redirect this article, the subject does not appear to be notable.★Trekker (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And "The fact that the Elf Cat doesn't have as much recognition", in actually reliable sources, is a reason to delete; WP:GNG basically boils down to "doesn't have much recognition", regardless what the topic is. This is not the only such iffy cat breed/crossbreed article that needs to be deleted and replaced with a reliably sourced summary version in List of experimental cat breeds, unless and until such time as they clearly pass WP:GNG (and a summary should remain there even after such an article exists, until the breed in question has major recognition as not experimental/provisional).  Self-published breed standards, promotional nonsense, and tiny organizations' websites don't cut it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - sources show existence, but don't pass notability standards. 00:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilKnight (talk • contribs)
 * Delete and merge to List of experimental cat breeds. Poorly sourced individual article, but some content worth keeping. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The 'Delete and merge' option is impossible. If the content is merged, the history needs to stay here for attribution. The nomination is proposing 'summarize at List of experimental cat breeds' - that's a merge proposal and as such AfD is the wrong forum. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know. If you want people to address what they mis-stated, you'll need to ping them. you probably meant "merge and redirect".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer: if this closes as merge and redir, feel free to userspace it to me temporarily, and I'll handle the (compressed) merge, since I've put it into my queue to do the WP:SUMMARY of it at the target page anyway. Actually, please do that userspacing if this closes as delete and the List of experimental cat breeds doesn't exist by that time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:37, 4 November 2017 (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.