Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of catgirls


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of catgirls

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list. This list contributes nothing to the sum total of human knowledge except that some people are enamoured of pointless lists. It's divided into rather arbitrary subsections, and riddled with original research judging by the "presumably"s, "apparently"s and "suggests that"s. There are no sources to confirm that any of the individual entries are in fact catgirls; although some are probably obvious, others are not. The Egyptian goddess Bast? Come on! That's not even OR, that's just opinion. All in all, this list is an indiscriminate, pointless mess that Wikipedia would be better off without. Reyk YO!  08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I think this could be an okay list with some real pruning, but it might actually be better to just kill it and start over with a category, or a section in List of fictional cats. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It links to other articles on the wikipedia, thus making it a valid list. Most of these characters or series listed are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles.   D r e a m Focus  13:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to other articles is a reason to keep? Thats a new one.... Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It means it isn't just some arbitrary list, but a list of notable things. Very helpful for finding things on the wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  14:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these are valid reasons for keeping the list. All wikipedia lists should link to other articles on Wikipedia; otherwise, they're dead-end (and likely orphaned) articles. It's perfectly possible for a list in which every entry is linked to an article to still be completely arbitrary or invalid. The individual entries having sufficient notability for their own articles has no bearing here. And usefulness (or "helpfulness") is not a valid argument for keeping. I'm not going to argue your keep !vote itself, based on Quasirandom's below comments, but your arguments aren't much. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination consists of arguments that the list needs to be cleaned up, not that the list needs to be deleted. Also, contra the nomination, it does not have "no sources" -- one is sourced, to a scholarly article citing that particular catgirl as the one that popularized the type, which ought to be enough to show that the subject of catgirls is notable. So: clean it up, and if after citing all that can be cited and deleting the rest the list is too small, then start a proposal to merge it back into Catgirl,the article from which this was split and which acts as its context. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For sources, one has only to look at the other wikipedia articles the list links to, or check the official sites of the series, if they believe any on the list are a hoax, and there aren't really catgirls in them. [[User:Dream Focus | ''' D r e a m Focus ]]''' 14:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If there are indeed articles that don't belong to this category,then remove them.Otherwise,why bother? -R.G. (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - per Quasi, AfD is not cleanup. Work through the list first, and bring it back to AfD after it's cleaned up, if necessary. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list appears to have been created simply to have a list and membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas. See also WP:LISTCRUFT. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research? You mean they have to look over at the cover of the series, and say hey, that is a catgirl on it?  Common sense indicates we don't need to wait until a newspaper or magazine reviewer says it is a catgirl, if we can use our own eyes to verify that.  Do you have and realistic doubts that the catgirls on the list exist?   D r e a m Focus  03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Using your "own eyes" also means using your own interpretation, which falls under WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. That's why we have WP:V to avoid this. --Farix (Talk) 03:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Cruftcruft "Unfortunately, [cruft's] definition's complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in...Ways to spot Cruftcruft...Almost always used as "justification" for a delete vote in an Article for Deletion...Options other than delete not often considered...Use of the word "Cruft", commonly found in increasingly bizarre portmanteau forms, such as "listcruft", "gamecruft", and the nearly all-inclusive "Vanispamcruftisement"." Ikip (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Farix has this right. This is an indiscriminate list. Also seems to be put together with original research.  The list is doomed to these from its outset because of its overly broad topic.  Them  From  Space  00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is the topic overly broad? It only list one thing, that being catgirls.   D r e a m Focus  03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The list ranges from cat characters to characters who simply wear cat-ears. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If each section was divided into separate article pages, many would want to merge it altogether. Having catboys listed in the catgirls article is a bit odd though.  Nothing elses seems out of place.    D r e a m Focus  04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a complete waste of space. Doceirias (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Idontlikeit isn't a valid excuse. Do you have another reason for its deletion?   D r e a m Focus  03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for keeping, either. Reyk  YO!  03:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per TheFarix. Purely WP:OR with few legitimately sourcable entries, which can and should already be discussed as appropriate under cat girl. This list fails WP:NOT and WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Quasirandom and Dream Focus's arguments. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if they are significant characters in notable fiction, the list is not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate is not a synonym for: "less important than I think they ought to be". It can mean listing everything of a type, regardless of any criterion at all, or   listing things at random, or on the basis of non-rational criteria. This is a rational criterion. "Cruft" similarly is a synonym for NOTIMPORTANTTOME. I'd say half of Wp is not the least important to me. it might be exactly the opposite half of some people here, and then we'd have no encyclopedia at all. DGG (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list performs the usual purpose of assisting navigation and so seems quite proper per WP:LIST. This function is analagous to an index in a paper reference book and these are usually thought indispensable for a good reference work.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see the ARS has arrived to shout "KEEP" in unison just as soon as the article was tagged for "rescue". And here they claim that the ARS is not an inclusionist voting block. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What?? I don't see any elephants in this room.  Them From  Space  22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I am a member of the ARS and added a citation to the article for the cat-goddess Bast - the only entry which has been specifically challenged.  I would have done more but the list does not seem to need any more help, being well-structured and comprehensive. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One citation out of hundreds of entries. And does it really say that the goddess is a "catgirl" or does it simply verify the existence of this goddess in Egyptian mythology? If it's the later, then it still fails WP:SYNTH. Almost all of the entries have issues with WP:NOR and especially WP:SYNTH. Who calls character that dress in cat costumes "catgirls"? Or characters who transforms into cats (ex. Minerva McGonagall) as catgirls? --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Farix, Assume good faith. There have been plenty of articles flagged for rescue which had few and sometimes no rescue members getting involved.  And most did say Keep before that tag was even added.   D r e a m Focus  01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * rescue was added at 04:13 on March 21. The last three keeps were all by ARS members at 16:12, 21:00, and 00:02 on March 22. That's simply calling a spade a spade. This is the kind of block voting that we were told by ARS members didn't happened the last time rescue was put up for TfD. --Farix (Talk) 01:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain the difference between this and the hit list which is to be found at Anime and manga. You and other editors seem to have a consistent pattern of voting delete for articles upon this list.  Do you claim exclusive rights over this material? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike the ARS, WP:ANIME is not a group that wants to keep or delete articles. Nor does it solicit membership based on inclusionist or deletionist tendencies. Simply put, the workgroup doesn't go around creating or protecting Walled gardens. The deletion sorting page is also is neither inclusionist or deletionist in nature. Inclusionist, such as Dream Focus, can use these lists just as easily as a deletionist would. The only thing that a listing on the anime and manga deletion sorting page will result in is members of WP:ANIME, who are usually in a better position to judge an article against policies and guidelines, to comment on the proposed deletions. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The animanga delsort page is not a hitlist, it is simply a list of pages within the scope of WP:ANIME which are up for deletion, similar to any of the dozens of other WP:DELSORT lists. The only agendas being represented via that page are the agendas of whomever is perusing it at any given time. And I'd appreciate you not making assumptions on my !voting patterns (as, probably, would many of the other people who watch that list); I !vote on the merits of articles listed there (if I comment in the first place), not on my personal opinions or editing philosophy (which, by the way, is somewhere around mergist). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep of flawed nom, one that violates POLICY (WP:ATD) and Guideline (WP:BEFORE) by ignoring them before making the nomination. You don't Ignore the rules unless it improves wikipedia. And further, to state "This list contributes nothing to the sum total of human knowledge" is diametrically opposed to the entire purpose of why wiki is here. Perhaps this list will not increase the nom's knowledge, but a number of editors who have actually contibuted to the article might seem to indicate that the "knowledge" is notable to them and worth inclusion in a paperless encyclopedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the nomination. It cites policy (ie. WP:V and WP:OR). Either this article can be improved (which I doubt), in which case this AfD will act as a spur to improving it, or it can't in which case it should be deleted. Either way, derailing productive discussion on procedural grounds hurts Wikipedia and should be discuraged. Reyk  YO!  00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever is cited as reasons for deletion, the ignored policy WP:BEFORE means just that "BEFORE". And using an AfD to "spur improvement" is itself a misuse of the AfD process, most specifically because there was no WP:DEADLINE before this AFD was initiated to force a showdown and start a ticking clock. Tagging it for improvement, whether you personally think it is possible or not, is the proper procedure and assuumes good faith that others might try. Circumventing policy is never to be encouraged. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try. I did not use AfD for the purpose of spurring improvement to it, but because I think it is irredeemable. As I explicitly stated. The (unlikely) possibility for improving it to an acceptable standard is an additional perk resulting from the process in case I am wrong. I resent you twisting and misrepresenting my views. And isn't it funny how the same people who go on and on about WP:BEFORE are the same ones who take no notice of WP:BURDEN? Reyk  YO!  00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that quoting you is not proper. But you did in fact just write "Either this article can be improved (which I doubt), in which case this AfD will act as a spur to improving it, or it can't in which case it should be deleted." And isn't it funny how those people who ignore WP:BEFORE are the first to divert attention from that error by pointing in other directions? Not you, naturally.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BEFORE isn't policy. It's advice to editors before nominating an article. At best, it as guideline status. However, AfD can't be closed as Keep on the bases that an editor ignored WP:BEFORE. --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You say I ignored WP:BEFORE. I didn't. I took a good long look at the article to see whether it could be improved by editing and in my opinion it can't. You say I ignored policy in my nomination. I didn't. I referred to WP:V and WP:OR, which actually are policy. You say I started this AfD to get this article improved. I didn't. I went as far as saying that's one of the good things that could result from the discussion in case I am wrong about the article's potential. And you wonder why I'm complaining that you are putting your words in my mouth. Being deliberately misrepresented is one of the things I don't put up with. Reyk  YO!  01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per arbitrary/loose nature of subject. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete arbirtrary, indiscriminate, not a directory.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I suppose. Assuming (from the existence of catgirl) that this is a notable fictional archetype, it's reasonable to list notable examples. I think anything non-obvious should be trimmed unless cited, and then it will be small enough to merge back into catgirl. Nerfari (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep List requires cleanup which seems rather easily done. Nerfari's comment that this is a navigational aide similar to a glossary in a paper encyclopedia also bears consideration. I'm normally antilists cause they're a poor excuse to remove content, but when its a navigational aid I can support them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a reasonable list, no real reason given for deletion. Artw (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list for navigation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful and encyclopedic list the meets guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of them are a bit annoying in person, but the phenomenon is easily notable, indicating that a well-sourced and sorted list is in order. As a side note - the nomination was fine. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly indiscriminate; a category is somewhat appropriate for individual character articles, but aside from that, this is an exercise in original research. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely indiscriminite OR. AngoraFish   木  11:10, 24 March 2009 (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.