Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cats with fraudulent diplomas


 * 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. Per the snowball clause, the probability of this discussion resulting in consensus to delete the article is minuscule, and so there is little point in prolonging it. Renaming suggestions and merge proposals are welcome on the article talkpage. Skomorokh, barbarian  13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

List of cats with fraudulent diplomas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Also adding, created during the course of this debate.




 * Delete. This is about as unencyclopedic as it gets, list or no list. JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that JBSupreme is the nominator, and his rationale essentially is a copy-paste of Wikipedia Arguments to AVOID in Deletion Discussions. It's nothing more than WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC sprinkled with a dash of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you cannot think of a valid rationale when nominating an article for deletion, please don't bother nominating any articles in the future. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It doesn't make a difference who or what the entity is getting a fraudulent diploma. There may be a trend that those doing the exposure choose a cat as the subject, but there's no real reason why that should be so, except habit. It would be a good idea to include any cited material in either the Diploma mill article, or in the article for the responsible company. Even if that's not done, the article doesn't need to be in Wiki. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. Here's what I said on the talk page before this article was nominated for deletion: "The idea of a "list of cats with fraudulent diplomas" is a little odd and jokey, although the content is reasonable and cited. The significant aspect is not that a series of cats have been awarded fradulent diplomas &mdash; it's that people working to expose diploma mills sometimes use cats as funny newsworthy hooks. Maybe this material should instead be included in a section within diploma mill about efforts to expose fradulent diplomas." Dreamyshade (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Update to my vote: I am also OK with renaming. See my comments below at 21:03, 6 November 2009.


 * Keep. It's more interesting than most articles on Wikipedia. 82.71.22.229 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) — 82.71.22.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Just because an article is amusing doesn't mean it isn't also informative. It is, of course, niche useful information, but so is 99% of wikipedia. It's funny and it's well cited. It's funny and good. It should be kept. rek (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Please people, this is Wikipedia, not encyclopedia dramatica. "because it has cats with diplomas" it's not a valid reason. R031E5 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should take four seconds to read the keep votes that give strong arguments, much stronger than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - because it has cats with diplomas. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep - fine, don't include it in the printed version, but keep it here - is a genuine problem, so let's keep a record of it. --jezmck (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep well referenced and useful.  Grue   08:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I like it. I find the information interesting and of value. There are enough entries to warrant a page. lina70 08:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP!!! it's awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.164 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep! The stories we tell, and even the frauds we perpetrate, tell us things about ourselves as people. This is cultural history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.161.170 (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC) — 24.209.161.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The content is encyclopedic, it should be in Wikipedia. I don't see any compelling argument why this content should be deleted. Two people have voted to delete, JBsupreme and Piano non troppo. JBsupreme has offered no persuasive argument of any kind. Piano non troppo seems to consider the content encyclopedic, though unnecessary, and considers the scope of the article to be too narrow. I agree with PNT that the title is too specific. Have other animals been used to get fraudulent diplomas? Is this technique used to identify fraud in other countries? If yes, it's probably a good idea to change this into a list of animals which have received fraudulent diplomas, or perhaps a list of educational institutions which have fraudulently given diplomas to animals. For now, leave it as is. The content is informative, well-referenced, and should be useful to anyone researching diploma mills. There's no better place to put it right now, but if other animals are used in this manner, the article should be moved to reflect the broader scope of this practice. --NorsemanII (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly keep. Merging into diploma mill is a very bad idea, since it isn't notable in regard to exposing diploma mills; if anything, it should be merged into list of cats (see the list of dogs involved in war for a corresponding example). However, Wikipedia is not paper; we definitely have the space and resources to keep this article around. Merging with list of cats, an article which is already disorganized and filled with trivia, would ruin a good article (this one) and make a bad article (the list of cats) worse. Keeping it as its own article will make it easier to attract editors to watch this article and make sure it maintains its current high standard. This article is interesting and informative, has a number of well-researched examples, and will be interesting reading for fans of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia in particular. I strongly vote we keep this article around. -- Gaurav (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here's some justification for my idea to merge the article: there are no notable cats with fraudulent diplomas who aren't part of efforts to expose diploma mills. This list covers a real pattern, it involves a significant issue, and there's some reliable news coverage, but focusing on the cats isn't really appropriate for a serious article. It's playing along with the joke offered by the people who have registered their cats — in the service of a larger purpose. But the comparison to list of dogs involved in war is helpful — I might argue that those dogs would be more interesting as part of an article about wartime morale-boosting efforts, but that would be an oversimplified interpretation of the reasons why there are wartime dogs. I think the reasons are more clear in the list of cats with fraudulent diplomas. I agree that this list shouldn't be stuffed into a place where it would be forgotten, though. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as Dreamyshade suggests. The practice of registering pets as a means of exposing fraudulent universities is something that should be covered, and the best place to do that is in the diploma mill article. Listing each and every instance is silly and unnecessary. Reyk  YO!  09:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep interesting, well referenced and useful. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge as per Dreamyshade StuartDouglas (talk)


 * Definitely keep. The topic of diploma mills is enormously important.  The feline approach may seem like a bit of a joke, but actually it is very revealing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Colquhoun (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is funny, informative and well referenced. I've no way of knowing if it's comprehensive but it is useful information, despite the jokey tone. The idea of showing that a cat's been awarded a diploma is a very effective way of highlighting how daft these degrees are. Plus, given that the internet is largely a resource for documenting cats I think it's important to preserve pages outlining their achievements :) JoBrodie (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe this entry to be fully congruent with the avowed purpose of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bob Marshall (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)  — Bob Marshall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.6.77 (talk) — 86.143.6.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. No source discussing the notability of the topic => SYNTHESIS. This, much like the Dog article, is a COATRACK, and OR, as none of the reliable sources discuss a trend in generalised cat degree taking.  I've been through this before at Mass killings under Communist regimes where people are willing to COATRACK any individual paragraph of verifiable material without realising that the article as a whole is not notable as the topic itself is not sustained in reliable sources.  Yes I am comparing cat lovers to Joseph McCarthy.  No RS discusses the notability (or actuality) of the practice of people in general getting degrees for their dogs.  Its SYNTHESIS of the worst kind, a COATRACK of individual Dog Degree incidents being turned into a social trend by editors here.  Wikipedia is not a Sociologist.  Yes, I am comparing Dog Lovers to Vyacheslav Molotov  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)  00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with diploma mill. The topic is a bit too newspaper-like for a separate article, but it does serve to illustrate the lack of controls in such institutions. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article is linked from Reddit as of this morning, which will generate an unusual amount of interest. Very mild keep from me&mdash;while these cats are not individually notable, these appear to be separate, sourced instances of diplomas granted. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, with a link from diploma mill. While the article appears to be jokey, it's actually very informative as to the level of fraud that goes on in diploma mills. I don't think a simple mention along the lines of "diploma mills are often so lax as to award diplomas to household pets" cuts it. It's the fact that this can be done routinely, and also the fact that it's on the verge of bebeing a semi-normal journalistic technique in these kinds of investigations. frosty840 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Dreamyshade --Zegoma beach (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per Dreamyshade. I fear that this will fall upon deaf ears, however. Reviewing admin needs to carefully consider value of some of the keep !votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas to this discussion, which has recently been created and which ought to receive the same outcome. BencherliteTalk 14:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article seems well cited. I would, however, consider potentially merging the dogs and cats articles in to a joint animals article, to avoid a proliferation of related articles. I don't see how this article is any different from many of the other more obscure pages wikipedia has. Luckybee23 (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Is there a global trend of cats and dogs getting dubious diplomas? If not, these funny but isolated incidents are better for News of the Weird. Warrah (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with link to/from diploma mill. This article is awesome, and its presence isn't hurting anyone. Penumbra 2k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - article is factual and well-referenced with impartial discussion. --Mwongozi (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very informative and amusing. Gravity should not be a prerequisite for a Wikipedia article.  Seduisant (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article covers a notable subsection of the fraudulent degrees topic. Khcf6971 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, Keep - while perhaps a WP:SYN problem, each instance seems properly referenced. Also, this article is getting lots of notice outside wikipedia, so why get everyone upset about it by deleting a verifiable list.  Once again wikipedia randomly observes something over time (the use of cats to ferret out diploma mills) and cements the existence of it of a concept (the article was originally titled as Colby Nolan when created in December 2004, and was only renamed about 10 days ago).  By the way, in searching the subject, I ran across the story of Tobias F. (for Feline) Schaeffer and added it to the article.--Milowent (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge – What is notable is not the cats that have diplomas, but what this phenomenon reveals about diploma mills Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and move to close per invalid nomination and snowball Garbage deletion rationale by nominator JBSupreme. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not valid rationales to nominate this article for deletion in the least. The template added by Edgarde in an effort to invalidate all keep votes is absolutely petty. The arguments to keep this article are sound, and no template will fool any administrator with the least bit of competency. The article is well sourced and clearly notable, and if someone gets butthurt and doesn't like it, that's just too damn bad. Vodello (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep and agree on the snowball. It's been a while since I've seen an article this well sourced show up in AfD. Discussion about merging with new corresponding Dog article might be useful (and is the only reason I can see for even bothering to keep this vote open). --Ray Radlein (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Plenty of WP:RS satisfy notability guidelines. The subject is weird indeed, but no guideline or policy reason exists to delete it. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Diploma mills in the United States or to Diploma mill. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for indiscriminate information. The buying of diplomas for cats as a demonstration of the lack of legitimacy of the diploma mills is already covered in the redirect target article. No sources are cited showing that the topic of "cats with fake diplomas" or "goldfish with diplomas" or "dogs with diplomas" etc is notable in itself, so the article fails notability. Some of the animals listed doid not receive diplomas, but only memberships in some association. May violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of single purpose accounts seem to be chiming in as "Keep." Was this publicized on a bulletin board somewhere? Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And there's also lots of Keep votes from veterans that provide valid rationales. Apparently WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom is worth more weight than a valid argument. Vodello (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, this article is being posted about all over the place on the internet.--Milowent (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's informative and notable, and if some people want to take umbrage that the article also happens to be funny, that's their problem - it doesn't outweigh the right of the rest of us to read it and be both informed and entertained thereby. -- Harmonic Sphere talk  16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Interesting and informative and well referenced. -shogun (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - Interesting, presumably accurate, well referenced. Merge with List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas to create List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Goetzathome (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's a suggestion on the talk page to rename this as "List of fake diploma mill registrations", which is worth discussing as a way to focus on the significant issue (exposing fradulent diplomas) rather than the gimmick (cats, and a single dog). The only issue with that proposed title is that it sounds like it could cover both notable efforts to expose fraud and notable instances of people who have been caught with fake diplomas. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not lug List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas in the same category. That was a weak article with no references that was created just yesterday with a grand total of 128 bytes. There is absolutely NO compelling argument to move this article. Vodello (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps as part of "List of fake diploma mill registrations" - good idea, good list, good research, good cites. I'm a long time editor and vested inclusionist. --Lexein (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No !vote, just a note to any passing admins to say that permission is granted for a snow closure. "Merge" and "keep" are effectively interchangeable outcomes at AfD, and the merger discussions can continue on the talk page.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no convincing arguments to delete. It meets WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. WP:SYN does not apply since it doesn't "advance a position"; it's simply a list. Merging it with the dogs might be a good idea though. Lampman (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.Information is information. This is we cited, and potentially useful. Additionally, I would like to point out that we are a rather farcically silly species in terms of our own self importance. Self consciousness has made us both highly socially advanced, and at the same time, completely over complicated. We are so proud very of our gathering and distribution of information, and ever so serious about it. By our definitions, this article is reliably sourced and true information. Perhaps allowing entries like this will help some to realize that and other to remember that there is should be a limit to our pride. At times, that which we define as necessary, important and relevant, can seem a bit ridiculous when put into practice or context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.108.121 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge: These felines are only famous because of diploma mills and are entirely non-notable outside that context. Without knowing the diploma mill context, the meaning of this list appears absurd at best.  I am not opposed to the "List of fake diploma mill registrations" renaming idea, but isolating cats as fake diploma recipients does not add anything to the discussion of fake diplomas in general.  Tomorrow I will sign both of my Bearded Dragons up for degrees in astrophysics; will there be a page for reptiles too? GreyWyvern (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol Pretty funny. Not sure that the connection is anything more than tenuous, but ok. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems to me that the opposition to the articles stems from the fact that it seems silly and moronic, given its subject matter...and because encyclopaedias must be of a completely pedantic and academic nature, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. There is a fundamental flaw in this logic. It may seem "silly" to us, but so are many other articles--I'm sure that many people would agree that the subject of "pubic hair" is often a humorous one, yet there persists to be an article about it on Wikipedia.


 * The basis for an article isn't the emotive response we have to the subject matter, but rather its contexts and the information that it contains--and as long as it relevant to human existence and contains significant, cited information, it's perfectly appropriate. Cats may often be the subject of internet memes and of general humor, and combined with the seemingly-absurd notion of house pets getting professional degrees, I can see how people think the article should be removed...but behind this mess of facetiousness exist valid information. The articles talks about protest, and the cats were simply a vector for said protest. And even if the article wasn't, and was simply about cats with diplomas...it might seem inane and trivial, but if its well-cited it has conceivable uses and to a degree and is informative in an anthropological sense.RobLikesBrunch (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge the dog and cat lists, either to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas or List of fake diploma mill registrations. The lists themselves are worth retaining.  The distinction between cat and dog (and reptile, per User:GreyWyvern) is an immaterial distinction in lists such as these.  Reasonable minds could vary on whether a list of diplomas that are fraudulent by virtue of being awarded to animals should be distinct from those that are fraudulent for other reasons; I suspect it would turn on the sizes of the lists. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge both to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas or something similar, per TJRC. Merging to diploma mill would degrade the quality of that article by giving undue weight to this particular topic, which does (surprisingly) merit the detailed sort of treatment it's been given so far. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. OK, undue weight is a good argument to consider. If this article were merged into diploma mill and not condensed and contextualized, it would be an unwieldy section. Actually, renaming to "Animals with fraudulent diplomas" sounds better to me, since this isn't just a list. The article provides detailed information for each item, and the events would make sense in chronological order rather than alphabetical order (because each diploma cat in the news may have influenced the occurence of later diploma cats). The article could also offer a much better introduction, with more of a summary of the contents and more contextualization about efforts to expose diploma mills. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Greywyvern and TJRC - my preference would be List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove fraudulent from the title. We cannot prove that each of the cats did not actually earn their diplomas. Since Reliable Sources reported on it, we should let that guide us rather than the silliness of the topic.  Abe Froman (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well referenced. Optionally merging into diploma mill is preferable to deletion. Defixio (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the topic is a bit odd, it's a well written and well referenced article. Maybe we can rename it to "animals" instead of just cats. I'm almost positive that I once heard about a Lemur who graduated from Penn State a few years back.  fintler (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * suprised keep - not a joke article, and actually very well sourced. Artw (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, and is verifiable.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought to my Keep preference, if we find permissible articles about Dr. Johnson's cat, and the first Iberian lynx to breed in captivity, and a cat who rescued her kittens from a burning building in Brooklyn, surely we can find room for this one. Seduisant (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Subjects have not received significant coverage in secondary sources, shown by the fact that most are only attributed to one source. Also, aggregation of these non-notable cats into a list does not qualify the subject as notable.Bladeofgrass (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly rename. I've just redirected the article about dogs with diplomas here because it's silly one-item list. So the article should cover diploma mills cases in general. --Tone 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A Comment I've moved some of the comments down to their proper places in the sequence (including one about self-importance; the irony!). And I've added a talk header as a reminder, though I'm surprised it's necessary. I've also taken a couple of the single-purpose tags out; the contributors have other unrelated edits, so it looks like a put-down. as for the subject; it's a laugh, isn't it? Swanny18 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced, interesting and informative. I would also like to see a page on 'List of cats with legitimate diplomas'. AOEUZZN (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have to vote for WP:IAR on this one. The title is just so ridiculously funny, it charmed the hell out of me, and I would consider it a loss to the encyclopedia if it were deleted. On policy grounds I could point to the article's length and say that it is worthy of a separate article, as part of a "series" with Diploma mill. Equazcion   (talk)  01:22, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with Diploma mill. This information is edifying and entertaining in equal measure. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep 'cause WP:ILIKEIT. Plus, I believe this meets our notability and sourcing guidelines. Maybe it should be expanded to List of domestic animals with diplomas, or similar. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep an informative and encyclopedic article on a notable subject. This nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. fucking edit conflict Crafty (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's well cited, it's interesting, it's well written, and it covers a serious topic: fraudulent degrees. People have been fired for less. RussNelson (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This may look like a frivolous topic, but there's some serious history behind it, and it still has a serious purpose. This article was created 5 years ago. Until 29 October, the article was called Colby Nolan and it focused on a particularly well-known case of a cat with a fraudulent diploma. (Colby's degree actually helped with the successful fraud prosecution of one diploma mill.) Apparently someone concluded that that Colby was more notable than the diploma mill that awarded Colby's degree, so the page for the diploma mill was set up as a redirect to Colby Nolan (and now it points to this article, due to the recent renaming). The article as it existed before 29 October focused on Colby Nolan and contained a short list of "similar incidents". After the recent AfD for Oreo Collins (another cat on the list of similar incidents), someone apparently decided to repurpose the article as a list. The unintended result of that sensible action is that a perfectly sensible-looking article that had existed for 5 years suddenly started looking frivolous and became a target for deletion. Please keep the article as a consolidated place for information about all of the cats who have received fraudulent degrees. I've revised the intro to provide more emphasis on the serious aspects of the topic. --Orlady (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment why cats? have other animals/objects also been used this way? shouldnt the article be about, "fradulent diplos given to nonexistent people"? i support renaming if its kept.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – As trivial and sardonic as this entry may be, the amount of necessary and relevant information here is well-collected and arranged. The article is quite fitting with the style and tone of Wikipedia. —Down10 TACO 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though this article is unusual, the nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale.  The article is reliably sourced and since cats with fraudulent diplomas have received non-trivial coverage in reliable, neutral, third-party sources, it's not synthesis to create a list of such cats.  The argument for deletions rests mostly on a small-minded and unworthy notion of what an encyclopedia should be; let's reject this and be a better encyclopedia than that.  Proposals for rename should be considered, but there is no valid basis for deleting this notable, reliably-sourced content. --JayHenry (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Celebrities with Blue Eyes? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that you understand that the problem with a List of celebrities with blue eyes is not a problem of synthesis. If you're not aware of this I will ask you to take the time to actually read WP:NOR before I will discuss it further.  By the way, these aren't famous cats that happen to have fraudulent diplomas.  These are cats that are only significant because they have fraudulent diplomas.  See the big difference? --JayHenry (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is relevant to my interests. --95.209.115.42 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is relevant to my interests as well. Foggymyst (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. The subject is notable (Henriette Goldacre alone has had plenty of media coverage; the coverage is about the integrity of academic qualifications, and is not merely celebrity puffery); the article is well-sourced (and thus not OR); and for similar reasons, verifiable. But separating cats from dogs does appear to be undue weight. And my word, there are some peculiar single-purpose and IP votes on both sides here. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree with AlexTiefling, the subject matter has value and is well-documented, and should be merged with List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. This will improve both articles and serve to document a serious and noteworthy situation. dotlizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Agree with AlexTiefling, et. al.  The general subject of fraud is clearly important, and the use of named, living (or once living) co-inhabitants (pets) has sufficient emotional appeal that it suggests that there may be an important part of human physiology and psychology involved, such as Mirror neurons. Elroymatrix (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, there are animals with fradulent diplomas. I do not see a solid rationale for why they should be corraled into a list format, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. Well referenced, informative, factual, and too long to merge into the article on diploma mills. Should be retitled "animals with fraudulent diplomas" perhaps? What makes this worth keeping is that it is not just a list of people being silly with their cats, it is a series of cases where people have used animals to demonstrate the issuing of fraudulent diplomas, leading to at least one court case. I do not see the need for it to be entitled as a list format, though. Average Earthman (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep' (though merge content from the dog and other such articles). Well-sourced, with a clear criterion for inclusion. The phenomenon (of people registering pets for qualifications in institutions with low standards for admission) is well-established. &mdash; BillC talk 14:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Merging with Diploma mill would bloat that article too much. The purpose of this list is to provide a very strong and easy to grasp argument about how diploma mills work. ChaTo (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas per ChaTo et al. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - A valid article that encompasses well-sources, notable, and perfectly acceptable content. I see no compelling reason to simply delete it. That said, I think it would be better as a general article rather than a list. However editorial decisions are beyond the scope of AfDs, so I vote "keep". – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, pointing out that List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas has already been redirected. This is a notable topic, and there are many reliable sources in the article supporting that. As mentioned above, there really isn't a reason to distinguish between dogs and cats here; the notablity does not come from a cat getting a diploma, it comes from a non-human animal getting a diploma. (Scientifically, yes, humans are animals. Colloquially they aren't, so this should be fine.) &mdash; The   Earwig   @  20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not lug List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas in the same category. That was a weak article with no references that was created just yesterday with a grand total of 128 bytes. There is absolutely NO compelling argument to move this article. Vodello (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be sufficiently notable and verifiable. And amusing :) DWaterson (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - these cats are doing gods work and deserve their place in history. Mookee17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 7 November 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.