Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional cats


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional cats

 * — (View AfD)

This list is a complete mess. First of all, the topic is so broad as to be rendered useless, as I shudder to think how many thousands upon thousands of cats have appeared in fiction over hundreds of years. Second of all, the list has no definite criteria, with house cats standing side by side with lions and others with no distinction made between family Felidae and the domestic cat subspecies and including anthropomorphic and robotic variants that would not actually fit into either definition. Third, the list does not even follow its own criteria entirely, with some entires describing the fictional cats themselves and others merely describing works of fiction that include cats. Fails the guidelines at WP:LIST and Lists (stand-alone lists). Indrian 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom :: mikm t  18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-maintained, annotated, sectioned and structured as recommended by Lists (stand-alone lists). WP:LIST is a Manual of Style, how does this list fail this exactly? The fact that the nominator can identify entries that they disagree with (anthropomorphic, robotic, etc.) demonstrates that this list is one of the better ones and can easily be useful and encyclopedic. --Canley 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your logic is somewhat unusual. Because I can notice an entry on the list that fails to meet the criteria for the list it shows the list is well maintained?  Also, WP:LIST is a guideline, not a manual of style.  That guideline cautions against overbroad list criteria.  This list has virtually no criteria or consistent organization pursuant to what little criteria exists.  Also, you have convienently failed to provide an explanation for what makes this list "useful and encyclopedic" when it has no coherent criteria and is both an indescriminate collection of information and a list of loosely associated topics in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The scope of this article is enormous, including characters who have associations with anything cat-like. The amount of invalid or inappropriate links boggles my mind. I fail to see how it can be well-maintained when there's a incorrect wikilinks all over the place, like the entry and link for Solange (the cat from 9 Chickweed Lane) which leads to a Frankish saint from 880. It can't be actively maintained with this kind of nonsense, especially when it's been updated less than fifty times in the last month. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the scope is just arbitrary, unduly broad, and indiscriminate.-- danntm T C 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or delete all other similar lists of fictional animals in Category:Lists of fictional animals. It doesn't make sense to delete this without deleting List of fictional dogs, List of fictional bears, List of fictional ducks, List of fictional birds, etc. I would suggest making a group nomination. VegaDark 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - arguing that this article should be kept simply because other similar articles haven't (yet?) been nominated for deletion is complete BS. Today we're talking about "List of fictional cats".  Maybe tomorrow we'll talk about "List of fictional ducks".  The article is an inane dumping-ground and it's hard to conceive of someone needing such a list.  Zaku kai 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, deleting this would be like deleting Chicago Bears but not the New York Jets. Either We should allow all fictional lists of animals, or we should delete them all- it wouldn't make sense to only keep some, which nominating these individually opens the door for.  These should definitely be in a group nomination, since if some are kept and some are deleted that would be a double standard and there would likely be many DRV's for all the deleted ones. However, I would support deletion of all these categories as a group, as I agree with the reasons for deletion. VegaDark 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unmaintainable, so broad as to be useless. Serves no practical purpose: Zaku kai does have a point. WP:NOT. Moreschi Deletion! 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. chocolateboy 01:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and I am puzzled at the nomination. That it is not well maintained does not mean it could not be well maintained. its a defined group; not every fiction book in WP has a named cat.DGG 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is broad, but that is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. If the article in question needs improving is also not a reason for deletion.  Zahir13 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to follow the guidelines at WP:LIST. --- RockMFR 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether or not it meets a styleguide does not go to whether or not this is encyclopedic. To me it is not - it is more of a directory or trivia or indiscriminate collection naming any cat in any book or movie or tv show that ever was. It might be shorter to make a list of books, films, etc. that don't have cats. Agent 86 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no reason to delete the article unless you are also deleting every other 'list of fictional X' list on Wikipedia. In addition, for a more substantial argument, take a look at WP:LIST, namely, 'Information'. A list of fictional cats is a valuable reference for anyone who is drawing on it for cross references ("Cats in literature and film"). Sure, the article could use some cleanup, but it is a valid list by Wikipedia's own guidelines. Lithorien
 * WP:LIST is a style guideline, not an inclusion/deletion policy. Saying something is useful information, or that there are lots of other similar articles, or I like it do not make something encyclopedic. Many of the other lists of fictional things are up for deletion; for those that aren't, I'd welcome a discussion on them, too. Agent 86 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When the person who started the nomination for deletion uses WP:LIST for justification to delete, then it's fair to use it for justification to keep. If you'd like to throw out that part of the argument, you still have to address the fact that the list does contain useful information. Lithorien 05:26, 17 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.