Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittenpants


 * 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   no consensus. Coverage of subject is minimal, but discussion provided no consensus on whether it is enough or not. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Kittenpants

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable website/web content. No significant coverage - Google news search shows only 10 results, all trivial mentions or content written by Ratliff. Standard search shows the typical mix of social media, blogs, primary and/or unreliable sources - nothing approaching a reliable source in the first 15 pages of results. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list of ex-staff members and, especially, the list of interviews is sufficient to establish the publication's notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How does any of this pertain to the notability requirements for magazines or web content? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources supporting the notability of this web content. All current sources are primary. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – See, . Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Struck my original position above. Sources noted, and are WP:INDEPENDENT, but I'm not convinced this kind of coverage rises to the level of notability as also noted by Ravenswing below. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, seems to produce just enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Turqoise 127  04:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – This isn't the subject of substantial reliable coverage, nor is it award-winning, non-trivial, or anything else at WP:NMEDIA. It's apparently defunct, so it doesn't seem likely to gain notability in the future. ...Ex-staff members? Really? No better coattails? JFHJr (㊟) 05:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete — The interviewees seem to present some importance, but doesn't meet notability requirements, and is not likely to gain importance. C(u)w(t)C(c) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Would any Keep proponents care to name what specific sources they think meet the GNG - to wit, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail?" I'm not seeing any.  The reliable sources only mention the subject in passing, if at all, and those that mention the subject in more detail are, well, the subject's website.  Assuming that the interviewees the article claims were actually interviewed on this site, notability is not inherited.   Ravenswing  06:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per availability of reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail:, . Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The first source you mention devotes a single paragraph to this blog as part of a much larger article. The second source devotes a single sentence to this blog, again as part of a larger article.  The GNG explicitly holds that mentions of such length are "plainly trivial."  Ravenswing  20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It has more coverage than that in both those sources. Did you just read the first area "kittenpants" appeared or did you search through the entire article?   D r e a m Focus  12:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I read both, thanks. So tell me, what exactly beyond "Her blog, a mix of ridicule of others and self-deprecation, shares just the kind of snap-judgment zaniness that makes Fancy and Schmancy work. The name Kittenpants, for example, "doesn't really mean anything. Some people think it's about cute kittens, others about porn, but it is neither." Her social commentary is too dirty for Ratliff, who is moving to the Central District from New York in the beginning of July, to share it with her parents" and "Then there's the Kittenpants wingding Saturday, April 28, at Dan's Silverleaf in Denton, which, in keeping with Kittenpants' tradition of goofball Web antics and gentle sarcasm, stars Andrew W.K. and Corn Mo, both of whom live in their own bizarre world in which the concepts of crazy artifice and genuine wacko slip, slide and finally crash together" are you seriously claiming constitues "significant" discussion of this blog? (That's being generous, by the bye, and stipulating that those sentences do constitute "discussion" of this blog.) I will repeat: the GNG explicitly holds that mentions of such length are "plainly trivial."  Ravenswing  12:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete — The sources that are independent and reliable don't seem to provide a level of coverage that would be considered significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - many passing mentions is not sufficient. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Northamerica1000's sources prove notability.  D r e a m Focus  12:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting purely because of the renewed debate based on Northamerica1000's links. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 13:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this was relisted. Northamerica1000's links plainly show that deletion is not appropriate for this material.  There are very few blogs that generate that kind of coverage.— S Marshall  T/C 14:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Most blogs get ZERO coverage, instead of the two and a half sentences over two sources that this one did.  Of course, according to the GNG, that level of coverage is "plainly trivial" and insufficient to support notability.  Did you have some other notability criteria in mind aside from the GNG?  Ravenswing  20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't try to patronise me, Ravenswing. I'm too old and I've been here too long to put up with that crap.  You know perfectly well which criterion I meant and you can plainly see that the coverage is more than a trivial mention.— S Marshall  T/C 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG is quite explicit that citations of around a sentence or two in length constitutes "plainly trivial" mentions. If you don't actually believe mentions that small should be debarred from passing the GNG, the proper place to argue that is on the GNG's talk page, not here.  In any event, we can only judge whether the subject passes the relevant notability criteria as that criteria is set forth.  I am unclear what reliable sources independent of the subject which that subject in genuine substantive length, and therefore satisfy the explicit text of the GNG, you believe you're seeing, but I don't, in fact, "plainly see" any.  Ravenswing  20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG doesn't say that at all. What it says is that a particular one-sentence mention is plainly trivial.  And notability isn't for this.  The purpose of WP:N is to help rid the encyclopaedia of marketing spam.  It wasn't originally intended to be a mechanism for deleting material written by good faith users who're genuinely trying to inform and educate, and in my opinion, it's being misused here.  These rules are a means to an end, not things to be blindly enforced for their own sake.  Deleting this article will not enhance the encyclopaedia.  All this wikidealism would be better spent on BLPs, you know.— S Marshall  T/C 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pure sophistry - the GNG footnote obviously holds that one-sentence mentions are trivial. That being said, once again, if you dislike that notability standards are being used to judge whether a subject is, well, notable, your proper venue for making that argument - and in swaying consensus to your POV - is elsewhere.  Beyond that, no one is "blindly" applying rules here; we are doing so in the full belief that this blog is not notable, and as such does not merit an article on Wikipedia.  That you don't like our stance is obvious, but for someone complaining about patronizing, you appear quite willing to patronize others in suggesting that we can only be willing to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines out of unthinking reflex.   Ravenswing  17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article cites two independent sources, one of which has more than one sentence about Kittenpants, and the other of which has "Kittenpants" in its actual title. These strike me as very different cases from the genuinely trivial mention in the GNG footnote.  I do think the purpose of notability is as a way of detecting and removing spam, and I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say that here.— S Marshall  T/C 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't believe that the sources provided demonstrate notability. The sources seems to mention the website in passing, none of them are about the website itself, so none of them establish notability. Unless as source about the website is found, it is not notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are sufficient. JORGENEV 05:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe that? The sources are all either self-published or only mention the website in passing. Taking only the third-party sources: This is an interview with Darci Ratliff, the editor of Kittenpants. The source give notability to Ratliff, not the website, which is only mentioned in passing. The website is not even the sole focus of the interview, which seems more focused on Ratliff himself. This, again, is about Ratliff, not the website itself. I would struggle to see how that source even gives notability to Ratliff himself, never mind his website. This is nothing to do with the website at all, but about Ratliff and a shop he is opening. The website is mentioned three times, to give context or as a brief example. The source never focuses on Kittenpants at all. Finally, this is about an event, which has Kittenpants as a part of it. This gives notability to the event, not to the website. Thus, I cannot see how any of the sources provided establish any kind of notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one you mention is in fact about Kittenpants, the guy asked him about it throughout the interview. "What's currently rumbling at Kittenpants?" "Is Corn Mo a Kittenpants groupie or is Kittenpants a Corn Mo groupie?" "What's up with the KP call to Action?" etc. shows coverage about Kittenpants, not just the Ratliff.   D r e a m Focus  22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean that blogger? Great.  What makes that a reliable source?  Ravenswing  17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gothamist is a reliable source.  D r e a m Focus  21:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some pertinent questions then - did Gothamist have editorial control of Kittenpants? and if so where is the ref that says this? Szzuk (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability hasn't been established with those refs. The author/owner shut the website down herself. What does that say? I can start a comedy website, maintain it for a bit, get a few hits here and there, then what? I don't make anything and go and get a job. Szzuk (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but improve sources. There is adequate notability but recommend increasing and diversifying the number of sources.Sngourd (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2011 (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.