Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Mill


 * 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. This was a tough one, made no easier by the timeline of participation. On the plus side, pretty much everyone here agreed that the main content of this page belongs somewhere on the project. The disagreement was about where, what form, and how expansive it should be. That is, this discussion was largely concerned with either to Keeping the article or keeping the content at a section and Redirecting there; I've considered the few other !votes in light of that.

It's also worth mentioning here that this AfD was discussed at ANI, which lead to a surge of input after the third relisting. More input is generally a good thing, especially when there was a paucity for the previous two weeks. There do not appear to be any bad-faith participants and there don't appear to have been negative consequences (e.g. canvassing) for the discussion (besides, AfD is not a vote). ANI is still bad.

With all that input, both sides mostly presented good arguments with strong foundations. I was particularly interested in the discussion over sources, and was thankful for the detailed analyses. Those favoring keeping the article noted a significant contribution to her field that has received broad coverage. The main claims against the sources, however, are either that they weren't sufficiently reliable (e.g. not first party) or that they didn't sufficiently cover the person rather than breed. Those are very strong arguments that did a good job explaining their reasoning, and I'm convinced that they're mostly accurate. Despite that, though, I think those favoring keep have sufficiently argued that enough of the sources remain with significant coverage of her to show notability and justify keeping the article. I think everyone acknowledges this still requires plenty of effort to get into good shape, but the consensus I read below is that the article should be kept and improved to that state. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete and redirect to Bengal cat, as not independently notable. This is someone whose name and basic background appear in various sources in connection with a single event (successfully getting a new-ish cat breed accepted into a particular major cat fanciers' and breeders' organization), but who now has what appears to be a memorial article (died last year). The content in it was literally just copy-pasted from the Bengal cat article, and I'm unaware of anything encyclopedic that could added to the erstwhile bio that can be found in reliable sources but which isn't something we can and do already cover at the "History" section of the breed article – except more that relates to additional history of that breed (history which we're eliding in an over-focus on Mill; more on that below). While there are a handful of notable animal breeders, they're generally notable for something else (e.g. Harrison Weir as an artist, writer, and organizer; Desmond Morris as a scientist and writer; Anne Rogers Clark as the most accomplished dog-show judge in AKC's history; William Burke Belknap as an industrialist and legislator; Patty Hearst as, well, Patty Hearst). Notability doesn't "rub off" from the breed onto the alleged main establisher of the breed. I don't think there's enough encyclopedic coverage to support a bio article, and we have a WP:NPOV issue, specifically WP:UNDUE, even in how we're using the Mill material at the breed article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Some additional detail: Mill was neither the first to breed these cats (possibly the first to do so in a controlled way), nor the only breeder of them at the time of their re-establishment as a standardized breed. Rather, she's just credited (in mostly specialized sources of dubious reliability – CatAristocrat.com, Pictures-of-Cats.org, individual breeders' promotional websites and blogs, etc.) as the chief proponent of their acceptance as such. The mainstream RS cited dwell on the breed; they do not focus on Mill. I even found something akin to a human-interest story in relation to the cats and breeders, and Mill only comes up in enough detail to provide a quotation, and as background for the cat story and that of her daughter, another breeder (associated with the Toyger breed). BengalsIllustrated.com (which appears to be well researched, and cites its own sources in detail) suggests that Mill's name "became synonymous" with Bengals, which is essentially the central point I'm raising here, but quite late in the variety's history. That article also goes into some of the other breeders involved, including Bill Engler, who named the breed in 1974 when he first got it registered in  cat fancier organization. Our own article is missing a lot of information on the breed history, and is kind of spinning a pro-Mill yarn. While Mill (née Sugden) had done some experimental breeding as early as 1963, she wasn't involved in breed establishment and "marketing" until 1980. It's not WP's job to help fans, friends, or family of Mill to over-promote her notability, in a separate article or otherwise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  17:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not "fans, friends, or family of Mill" I am a wikipedian who seeks to promote newsworthy or noteworthy articles. As an Encyclopedia Wikipedia should seek to included relevant or legendary persons. The fact that other relevant breeders have not been included on Wikipedia should not be the reason to exclude another relevant breeder. Jean Mill is the creator of the modern Bengal breed and she also was the driving force behind getting the breed accepted to the cat registry TICA.


 * If this article is allowed to remain on Wikipedia it will be developed (as is the case with all Wikipedia articles). Jean Mill is a legendary breeder who created what is one of the most popular cat breeds (Bengal cat) in the world. I humbly ask that this article remain active so that it may be further developed. And if other relevant breeders are absent from Wikipedia perhaps we should look at developing articles for them.
 * Lubbad85 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Jean Mill is a legendary breeder who ..." = fandom. See WP:NPOV policy.  Encyclopedically important breeders  been included; we have an entire category for them. They have one thing in common: they're all the subjects of a lot of coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG) as people, not just in connection to a particular breed and its background.  "Mill is the creator of the modern Bengal breed and she also was the driving force behind getting the breed accepted to the cat registry TICA": these are good WP:NOT reasons for Mill to be mentioned in the Bengal cat article. They are not at all rationales for a Jean Mill article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have spent a bit of time improving references on the Jean Mill page. I also looked up the reference that the OP referred to on Bengals Illustrated regarding Jean Mill and "others" creating the Bengal. The Bengals Illustrated article concluded with "She (Jean Mill) indeed was the originator of the breed." The reason Jean Mill is the originator or creator of the breed is evident in the research. Other breeders like Bill Engler successfully created a hybrid and then ended their backcrossing. Their goals were hybrid creation. Jean Mill had a very different goal. Jean Mill backcrossed hybrids to the F5 generation which is the even tempered modern domestic cat bengal. So where others throughout the history of the breed sought to create a hybrid, Jean Mill sought to create a domestic Bengal cat, and she was the only one who succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that matters, since "established a breed" isn't really grounds for notability, the sources do not focus on Mill but on the breed, and we have nothing to say about Mill that isn't better said in the Bengal cat article. It will simply be duplicate content. WP:NOT and WP:BIO1E apply here, and WP:GNG has't been met because the coverage  isn't in-depth (it may be in-depth about the breed, but not about Mill), or it is primary (e.g., breed associations simply regurgitating what they've been told).  The problem here is that every single breed that is not an old historical one was established by someone identifiable, so a keep here is an argument to create and keep hundreds or thousands of additional breeder bios, virtually none of which will have anything to say that won't already be in (or should already be in) the article on the breed. It would be different if Mill were notable independently, like being a famous writer or legislator or a bank-robber or whatever – anything that got any coverage, of Mill in particular, in reliable sources. All we have is her being name-dropped in articles that are about the breed (or in one case about her daughter and that person's breed). When the sources tell us that her hame has "become synonymous with" the breed, this means we have one encyclopedic topic, not two.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the article has information which cannot be duplicated in the Bengal Cat article, and more sources will be found to develop this notable person's bio. I also noticed today, that the Jean Mill page has had more than 100 hits each of the last two days. I take the view that I and others would have an interest in knowing about the breeders who established the cat breeds. The number of Wikipedia breed creator pages would not number in the "hundreds of thousands" because there are only 42 cat breeds recognized by the Cat Fanciers Association.
 * I can give an example of a person with a wikipdedia article that in notable for creating a part used on a guitar. Seth Lover developed the humbucker pickup for guitars. Virtually no information about this person exists in this article or elsewhere which cannot be included on the PAF article. I think if given time I could find many similar examples. However, I would not campaign to remove the Seth Lover article.
 * The article will be developed. To begin the article, I initially reproduced the paragraph and photo from the breed article as a place holder - knowing that I would develop this article. Since that time I have developed the article daily. I think if we allow the article to develop it will become even more worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I improved the Jean Mill article with additional information and references. I will continue to find more interesting material. One thing I have learned in the research is that Jean Mill has made breeding contributions to two additional cat breeds: the Himalayan cat and the Egyptian Mau. I believe that others will read the article with interest...cats have a very wide following, and Bengals in particular. The Bengal cat article gets 1500-2000 hits a day.Lubbad85 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That it's possible to make the article longer doesn't do anything to address the central matter, which is that this is a non-notable person (in terms of stand-alone article), a person who is of WP:NOT relevance in our content at all only in connection to a single event, the establishment of a cat breed. (having been involved in some other breeds isn't why Mill is mentioned in the cat-fancier press, and doesn't establish notability, for the same reason that Stefanie Schaeffer isn't more notable because the press also mention that she's an amateur golfer. The content of a bio article on Mill is necessarily going to overlap almost completely with coverage of the same person at the breed article, the context in which that person encyclopedically belongs. Using better sources doesn't help establish independent notability if they're not in-depth about the person as a biographical subject rather than in depth about the breed and its history; all that does is solidify the "synonymity" of Mill with a particular cat breed. That the popular cat-breed article is [mis]leading people to a bio page that just regurgitates what they already saw in the breed page isn't evidence of notability. Nor is a very tiny spike in views (100?); . The difference between a Jean Mill article and a Seth Lover article is that in-depth material has been written in RS about Lover, as a person, and his life (much more than we're citing, actually; we have nothing on him at present but some online articles, but paper music magazines and such have been writing about him since before the Internet existed). "I believe that others will read the article with interest" = WP:ITSINTERESTING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I understand your points and I of course wholeheartedly disagree. To say that I have simply made the article longer is a very snarky statement. I do hope that Wikipedia editors do not agree with your assertions. However the new research now shows that Jean Mill has been involved in the creation of 3 cat breeds and perhaps a 4th. The personal life and background of this notable person has not been fully explored yet-(more on that later.)

There are many articles on Wikipedia about people who are notable who are for one single event. These people could easily have a mini-bio on the article for their invention.
 * Johan Vaaler - inventor of the paper clip
 * László Bíró - inventor of the ballpoint pen
 * Percy Shaw - inventor of road reflectors
 * Bette Nesmith Graham - inventor of liquid paper

Many Fictional characters have Wikipedia articles - many fictional characters probably do not need a stand alone page (especially the ones used in advertising).
 * Jeff Albertson - Fictional Simpsons cartoon character
 * Michelin Man
 * Mr. Whipple
 * GEICO Cavemen
 * Morris the Cat
 * Charlie the Tuna

Presently I am researching Jean Mill's background as a wildlife conservationist. Some of Mill's notable accomplishments I have discovered in recent research.


 * Conservationist
 * Bengal cat originator
 * Contributor to the Himalayan cat breed
 * Contributor to the Egyptian Mau breed
 * Author
 * Possible contributor to Toyger breed (researching now)

I ask that the editors not remove the article simply because I have not made the correct arguments. (i.e. interesting, legendary, etc.) My goals are aligned with the goals of Wikipedia. I have spent many hours working to address the concerns expressed in this afd. These efforts take time and I am actively taking direction from this page. The biography will be developed.

I and others will develop the article (not make it longer). Jean Mill now has her name and contributions linked on the Himalayan cat article, Egyptian Mau article and Bengal cat article, and casual mention on the Toyger page because she is the mother of the Toyger creator Judy Sugden. I can imagine that Jean Mill had some involvement in that breed creation, and further research will be conducted. Given time I am 100% positive that the Jean Mill article will be developed further, at this point 14 sources appear on the article. I am searching through pre-internet sources, since the majority of Jean Mill's active life took place beginning in 1948. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all covered at WP:AADD: WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:INHERITED, WP:IKNOWIT. WP:BUTITEXISTS, etc. There's only one question before us: do multiple, independent (not breeder-published) reliable sources treat Mill as a biography subject, or just as someone connected to the actually notable topic here, the popular animal breed? It's clearly the latter.  Cat-fancier publications are written and published by breeders and are primarily a promotional venue for breeders and their output. They're shaky sources at best, but here even these are not dwelling on Mill but on the breeds. "She's was also a conservationist" = "Stefanie Schaeffer is also an amateur golfer".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I ask you to give time for the bio to be developed. Surely if Morris the cat and Mr. Whipple deserve an article, Jean Mill does.

Johan Vaaler - inventor of the paper clip could be included on the paper clip article, yet Johan has an article. I would ask us to keep the Johan Vaaler article - and to keep Jean Mill article. Please allow time to develop the Jean Mill bio. Biographical information will be added to the page. Cat registries are important for any article about Jean Mill, just as guitar and guitar enthusiast web sites would be important for any article about Seth Lover.

Sources for the Jean Mill article so far
 * 1.Book: Hallépée, Didier (2011). The Egyptian Mau cat. Italy: Carrefour du Net Fondcombe. p. 35. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
 * 2.Book: Robbins, Nancy (1 February 2013). Domestic Cats: Their History, Breeds and Other Facts. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 117. ISBN 9781300695424. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
 * 3.Major Newspaper: Jones, Joyce (20 September 1992). "The Pet Cat That Evokes the Leopard". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2019.
 * 4.Cat Website Wilson, Julia. "Bengal Cat Profile – History, Appearance and Temperament". Cat World. Cat World. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
 * 5.Cat registry website: "Bengal Breed". TICA. The International Cat Association. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
 * 6.Cat oriented website: "Meet The Bengal: The Miniature Leopard of the Cat World". BasePaws.com. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
 * 7.Newspaper: "Leukemia Hereditary Factors Under Probe By Researcher". THE DESERT SUN. Palm Springs. Calif. -. 19 April 1977. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
 * 8.Respected (by the OP) Bengal cat site "BENGAL CAT ORIGINS". Bengals Illustrated. Award Winning Publications. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
 * 9.Newspaper: McEnroe, Collin (28 June 1993). "WILD THING? NO, BENGAL'S A SWEET CAT". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
 * 10.Book: Hallépée, Didier (2011). The Egyptian Mau cat. Italy: Carrefour du Net Fondcombe. p. 35. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
 * 11.Cat registry website: "About the Bengal". CFA. The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.,. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
 * 12.Major Newspaper: Hamilton, Denise (10 March 1994). "A Little Cat Feat: A Covina woman's efforts at cross-breeding wild and domestic felines are paying off handsomely". Los Angeles Times. p. 2. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
 * 13.Cat Registry Website "Bengal Breed". TICA. The International Cat Association. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
 * 14.Respected Bengal cat site: Bengal cat website: Barrington, Kate. "A Detailed History Of The Bengal Cat Breed". Bengal Cats. Bengal Cats. Retrieved 8 March 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 14:22, March 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject could conceivably be notable, but the current version of the article is larded with so many non-reliable sources that it is difficult to tell if the notability extends beyond what could be appropriately covered at Bengal cat. See below for a quick review of the sources.


 * The Egyptian Mau cat: self-published book. Non-RS
 * Domestic Cats: Their History, Breeds and Other Facts: self-published book. Non-RS
 * LAT article. Fine.
 * Facebook post: Apparently a republication of an essay by the article's subject (anyone kknow here it was oiginally published?). Possibly usable as an SPS, but does not contribute to notability.
 * NYT article: Fine.
 * Cat-world: What makes this hobbyist site reliable? Likely non-RS.
 * TICA: Possibly RS.
 * Basepaws: What makes this cat DNA testing company reliable? Likely non-RS.
 * Desert Sun article: Does not even mention the subject.
 * Bengalsilustrated website: what makes this hobbyist publication (a division of "Award Winning Publication") reliable? Possibly non-RS.
 * Hartford Courant: Fine.
 * See #1
 * See #4
 * Cat Fanciers Assoc.: Fine.
 * See #7
 * bengalcats.com: What makes this hobbyist site/online community reliable? Likely non-RS.


 * Once the article is cleaned-up, it will be easier for me to decide whether keep or merge are the better options. Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare Thank you for the helpful evaluation. Will work to improve citations in the coming week. I have ordered several books for references: I will evaluate and update on Tuesday. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Well sourced as it is.  No compliance with WP:Before.  Indeed, U.S. v Sugden is plenty notable by itself.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meet GNG.  The review of sources identifies some problems, but still finds a number of reliable independent sources.  Canada Hky (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC) <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect per  SMcCandlish. I'm in a similar boat as Abecedare in that a lot of the sources are really more about the breeds, and you really need significant secondary coverage of the BLP instead for notability, not just sources focusing on a product someone makes. A lot of the above for keeping the article is just WP:1E or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that mostly needs to be dismissed. The sources I'm seeing so far are really just passing mention of Jean Mill and focused more on the breed. WP:INHERITED definitely applies here and doesn't justify a separate page. Some of the personal life stuff related to U.S. v Sugden seems like it's drifting into WP:COATRACK territory too. There's next to no secondary coverage of that, and at best, the case would get its own page, not a BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that my comments include the fairly recent "expansions" as not really affecting GNG at all. I'm seeing people claiming GNG is somehow met that seems more like straw-polls rather than WP:!VOTEs as nothing concrete has ever really been given here or at the article that would truly support a keep decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Article is improved with reliable sources to show subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has greatly expanded since it was nominated. This person is notable for creating multiple species of cats, and has reliable sources giving her coverage for her accomplishments.   D r e a m Focus  04:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As to the Merge/Redirect proposals, I submit that WP:Not paper covers it. The rest of the arguments are mere niffnawing about content.  Contnet disputes are a reason to improve the article, not a reason to delete.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mill did not create any cat species at all. She is credited with one breed and helping with two others. That's getting into WP:INHERITED territory for a GNG claim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Inherited deals with people claiming notability because of who they worked with or are related to. It has nothing to do with claiming someone is notable because of their accomplishments in their field.  There is plenty of valid information, referenced to reliable sources, to justify having her own article.   D r e a m Focus  20:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. I believe the article as it currently stands is sufficient for GNG. Davey2116 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bengal cats as failing GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources". I have now read all the sources cited in the previously mentioned and current version of the article, and independently searched for sources. And after we look past all the bloat (that is unsourced, sourced to non-RS's, and sourced to primary sources or personal communication with the subject's relatives), what is left is one reliable source contains some biographical information about the subject other than the fact of her breeding the Bengal Cat and two other otherwise reliable sources ( and ) about the cat breed that mention the subject (as they should!) but contain no significant biographical coverage.
 * It is particularly instructive to take a look at the United States of American v. Robert V. H. Sugden and Jean S. Sugden section that has recently been added: it is mainly sourced to primary court documents, and yet fails to answer the question "Were Robert and Jean Sugden finally convicted or acquitted?" This demonstrates the risk of trying to write a pseudo-biography of a subject by compiling trivial mentions in googleable sources. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Abecedare A mistake was made in the edit notes... the mistake is in admitting that the living daughter was contacted. I see how that admission can make the subsequent research suspect. The information provided by the living relative has led to other research sources. The living relative provided places lived, and marriage information - this will continue to lead to other sources. The good news is that the article is improving daily. In regard to the conclusion of the precedent setting case United States of American v. Robert V. H. Sugden and Jean S. Sugden more research is needed. The case is from the 1950s and it requires a time consuming case search through several courts. The good thing is Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia and the article can be improved perpetually. Thank you for voting. Lubbad85 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO – "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete and redirect to Bengal cat. The lead says: [sic]  This comes with a reference to a book whose typography and prose style doesn't suggest any editorial oversight. We later read:  This is sourced to a book by Mill, and to this alone. For Mill to be considered by herself the originator of such and such means nothing. &para; Normally I'd make this a comment, suggesting a drastic and urgent improvement to the article; however, after all the to-and-fro above about the quality of sources, if this is still the best sourcing possible for the biggest claim about Mill, then an article about her is hopeless. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC) There's something here, as shown by the NYT article. But still hardly enough for an article. Thus changing from "delete" to "delete and redirect". -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO – " The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Can there be any doubt about WP:ANYBIO? That the person is notable also appears certain. Many of the comments are for improving the article and sources.


 * Comment In addition I am unsure why this article has now been relisted three times. It appears to go against Wikipedia policy to relist an article over and over, after votes produced a clear consensus.

Lubbad85 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * March 7 Afd
 * March 14 Afd relisted
 * March 21 Afd relisted 6 votes keep 2 votes redirect
 * March 28 Afd relisted by Randykitty
 * Struck duplicate vote by . Bradv 🍁  15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Lubbad85, the first paragraph of what you write immediately above seem merely to repeat what you wrote earlier. Now, if she has indeed made a widely recognized contribution, then the article can cite this recognition. Right now, it does not. As I've pointed out, it says that Mill is considered the originator of a breed (her major claim to notability) because Mill herself says she was. This isn't good enough. Wikipedia requires reliable, disinterested sources. &para; You write of votes. An AfD is not a tally of votes. Whoever closes this will have the task of evaluating the arguments pro and con. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hoary The research has shown that Mill created the modern Bengal cat. The other contributors only succeeded in F1 creating hybrids (completely different). The research and the record show that Mill created the domestic Bengal cat. It seems very clear that she passes WP:ANYBIO – " The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. In addition Mill has also made a widely recognized contribution to two other breeds of cats. If you take issue with a source that is easy to address, But your vote is for delete. There are other sources which show this. New York Times Regarding the afd being relisted yet again, Wikipedia asks for consensus: Definition of consensus: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned The consensus was keep it seems disingenuous to keep relisting and voting hoping for a different outcome. Lubbad85 (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * With the NYT article, this is starting to look interesting. However, the article Jean Mill still cites material by Hallépée (who rather obviously doubles as the publisher of his book); a book published by CreateSpace (which will publish, or anyway print out, bind and send out, whatever you pay it to); and, as the sole reference for a major claim made for Mill, a book by Mill. Please strip this article of these and any other feeble sources. -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to draft space. This looks like it could be a notable subject, but the article is poorly written and there is contention about the sourcing, particularly sourcing that's more about cats than the subject. It is clearly and obviously not ready for main space yet, so move it to draft for improvement and review by a more neutral third party. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisting
This is the third relist. Evidently someone doesn't want to close because they don't like the clear result, which is KEEP. You are beating a dead horse. Get over it. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS is being ignored for some reason. "Editors who choose to re-list an article's deletion discussion should make sure that they are doing so when consensus is not clear".
 * Per WP:RELIST: "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, 'in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the Relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." Lubbad85 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, there are spirited disputes making good points. Consensus doesn't equate to majority vote. As an administrator myself, I would be hesitant to close this, because the closing admin must judge the arguments, not simply the vote counts. Also there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. There is no reason to appear that you are in a hurry. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete It may be possible to write a worthwhile article about this person that isn’t cloying fancruft, but this clearly isn’t the foundation that could be built on. Moving it to draftspace would not help that. Qwirkle (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is where has Qwirkle been the last three weeks, and why now? But latecomers ...
 * Forgive me, I have fallen into the methodology of the WP:AFD crew See, e.g., Supercentenarians and related articles.  If you can't win at the ballot box, disqualify the voters!
 * So I'll just WP:AGF and Qwirkle can ... live with that. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, User:Qwirkle has been somewhere at the periphery of the 7&6=thirteen-centric universe. Do you think every single wikiteur hangs about here? (I will let your obvious lie about assuming good faith speak for itself.) Qwirkle (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It could well be that more people have noticed the existence of this discussion because it was brought up at WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bengal cat. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times articles already support a short summary of Mill's contributions to Bengal cat breeding in the main article on Bengal cats. That article also provides needed context, as WP:NOPAGE suggests, for explaining the specifics of breeding one generation or type rather than another, so the section can avoid excessive detail and avoid the temptation of padding out a paragraph in order to look more like an article. Redirecting to a well-sourced, tightly-written section in that article provides a much better service to our readers, who are here to read encyclopedia entries. Bakazaka (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Qwirkle I apologize. I was wrong, and unaware of the ANI, and that plausibly 'let up the sky'.  Fireworks beget attention.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't read the Los Angeles Times source, because they seem not to want to abide by perfectly reasonable standards of privacy mandated by the European Union, or the New York Times source, because I don't have a subscription, but I must say that the rest of the sources look very weak. In particular the books cited are either written by Mill herself or are self published via CreateSpace and Kindle Direct Publishing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bengal cat. That article already covers this person contributions and serves better than this article does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bengal cat, which covers her proportionally to her contribution to the field. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect (saw this at ANI). The section at Bengal cat would seem adequate to cover her contributions; no reason why that couldn't be expanded a little, but I'm not getting the impression that there is enough topical coverage for a standalone article. As pointed out by Abecedare and others, the court case sources do not help in this regard because they are primary documents (lacking secondary uptake). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's subject meets the GNG. Although the article needs a lot of work, AfD is not cleanup.  Mini  apolis  21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bengal cat insufficient notability and too much cruft. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC).
 * keep this is not how our inclusion guidelines work. We have entire articles about her in significant newspapers.  She meets WP:N easily.  An editorial decision to redirect isn't crazy, but A) there is plenty here to write about IMO and B) such a discussion does not belong at AfD, it belongs on the article talk page. She meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This subject meets GNG although I think the article could be pared down some and more of the flowery language ("legacy"?) removed. But I think it meets our standard of notability and I don't like that it was relisted again when there is clearly a consensus to keep, perhaps to redirect or no consensus but not to delete. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep She meets WP:GNG with many articles about her and her work. As mentioned, she also gets by on WP:ANYBIO #2 with adding a new breed. The article also needs some improvement, like restructuring. StrayBolt (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that she meets GNG. gnu 57 13:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I won’t bother to read the mêlée going on above, but what it comes down to is the woman clearly had significant coverage from reliable sources, not just routine coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This person passes WP:ANYBIO the person made a widely recognized contribution in her field. The major sources are adequate. Gristleking (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a previous voter. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No objection to draft-spacing or user-spacing it, as the nominator. Someone suggested that above.  PS: The reason this was relisted is that this is not a vote.  A bunch of reflexive "keep" comments are not a consensus, when the sourcing is this weak.  There aren't multiple in-depth articles about this subject in independent RS. There are multiple in-depth articles about the cat breed which mention her, and about cat breeding and breeders (including one related to her) which mention her, in such sources; and there are in-depth articles about her in non-independent sources (her cat registry, and cat fancier publications written by breeders as promotional vehicles; not usable for notability purposes), and in WP:UGC blogs (not usable at all).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  )01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See in particular here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the ANI post was canvassing? Given how badly the OP did there, I'd expect people to be biased against the article rather than for it.  Certainly the ANI post brought in more !voters, but I'm not understanding how it could count as canvassing.  Or are you saying something else? Hobit (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.