Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty cat dance


 * 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 delete. Proto :: ►  13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kitty cat dance

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable Flash cartoon. There are other precedents of deleted non-notable flash animation articles on wikipedia such as the deletion of Charlie the Unicorn. If this was notable it could stay but I see no purpose for it. b_cubed 14:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources, thus the article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. –  Anþony  talk  14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is claimed in the article ("a minor Internet phenomenon") but no sources to back it up, and I can't find anything through Google. Jayden54 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While precedent doesn't apply, far less notable than (say) "Gonads and Strife".  Should Lobster Magnet be next? Tevildo 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be for deleting Lobster Magnet as well. b_cubed 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige. Tevildo 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reliable sources. bogdan 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a google on "I'm a kitty-cat, and I dance, dance, dance" yield 65,000 results with leading results such as youtube and ebaumsworld. It seems to be a real phenomenon.  I just don't know what rules I am checking this against.  Does someone have a WP:XX to check this against. TonyTheTiger 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles on Wikipedia are required to be "notable", which is a term we use in a very particular and frequently confusing manner. "Notable" here means that other well-respected and responsible publications have devoted significant attention to the subject. Notability (web) defines the specific criteria for establishing the notability of web-content; Reliable sources describes what the kinds of publications we're looking for. Something that's popular, with thousands of Google hits may not be notable because most of those hits are going to be brief mentions on blogs and forum posts, which are not checked for accuracy or subject to an editorial process that filters out trivial material.
 * Articles are also required to be verifiable, in that all of their content should be attributable to the previously-mentioned reliable sources. Verifiability is one of our core content policies which essentially states that we can't say anything that hasn't been said by someone else already. If there are no reliabe sources to drawn upon, we'd have nothing to say, so there's no point in having an article.
 * I hope that helps. –  Anþony  talk  00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V due to lack of reliable sources. As a response to the above I tried googling "I'm a kitty-cat, and I dance, dance, dance", and did not get the 65K results claimed by TonyTheTiger.  I got 159 unique hits out of 410 total, which makes this very minor by internet-meme standards. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete: Don't know if this matters, but I'm against deleting the entry. It's characterised as a minor interenet meme, which it is. But doesn't that very fact allow it to exist in wikipedia? Even perhaps in a "Minor Internet Memes" wikipedia entry?. Granted, I cannot remember how I know of this meme (I thought I happened upon it via b3ta, but I couldn't verify it after a quick search at the b3ta Yahoo group). Can't a youtube reference count? Hannes Engelbrecht 16:58, 7 January 2007 (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.