Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional cats and other felines


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional cats and other felines

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article meets multiple requirements for deletion, including limitless categories and content not suitable for Wikipedia. Djohns21 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I just realized this article has been nominated for deletion before, under the name List of fictional cats. This occurred back in early 2007 and the result was No Consensus. --Djohns21 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but split. There are sources in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As a group cats form one of the biggest and most recognizable types of animal in fiction and losing this list would be deeply unfortunate. It's in a poor state, somewhere along the line it has been allowed to go from "well, that's a bit over the top" to "well this is just silly", but that can be solved by trimming it and expanding the relevant entries with additional information. If it's trimmed down to cats which are major characters in major works then it will be fine and a good resource. Someoneanother 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I considered that. The problem with the idea that the article could be cleaned up is that the article is exactly what it is supposed to be; it is a list of every fictional cat, not just the noteworthy ones. As to the idea that there should be a list of noteworthy fictional cats, that is what the Category:Fictional cats is for. If a cat is noteworthy, it deserves its own page, which can then be added to the category. There are even sub-categories, such as Category:Cats in written fiction and Category:Films about cats. The only purpose I see then for this article is to collect a never ending list of insignificant cats. For example, "Mrs Figg's cats in Harry Potter" or my personal favorite, "Unnamed cat who gets a free sandwich in Miracle Whip commercials"--Djohns21 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Categories are hammers, lists are electric drills. Unless a topic fits squarely and obviously within a category it doesn't work well, whereas lists can be filled with additional information which make them much more useful as search tools in broader areas like this. Many of the items on the list are embarassing, but it would be far more embarassing if there wasn't a list on WP where readers could find the answer to questions like "how often do cats appear as main characters in cartoons" or "are cats a major presence in fiction". With all broader lists like these it comes down to maintainence; once they're reined in and the structure is in place they're a lot easier to maintain and weak or irrelevant entries are a lot easier to spot. Someoneanother 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination seems incoherent and so there is no case to answer. In any case, the topic has great notability: see The Cat and the Human Imagination, for example. Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:CLN, there's no reason we can't have a list and a category covering the same ground. This is an admittedly broad list... but if it were otherwise, it would be accused of being INDISCRIMINATE.  No objection to trimming non-verifiable parts of this list, but I don't see it as an inherently problematic list topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Use the article's talk page to discuss what standards to have for things on the list, and then remove those that don't belong.  D r e a m Focus  11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT, for a concise and distinct list to emerge. The open-ended criteria leads to a never-ending list. Most of the sublists contained here are also too broad in scope for an encyclopedic entry (cats in literature, cats on tv), or too trivial (cities named after cats, cat-like pokemon). Overall there isn't much here fit for an encyclopedia. This is a case where the category is appropriate, but the accompanying list is not.  Them From  Space  12:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this appears to be heading for a keep, the very least we could do to manage this is limit it to bluelink-only entries. In essence, applying our notability criteria to the entries.  Them  From  Space  12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains the weakness of such reasoning. For an example of an existing encyclopedia which covers the topic in a similar way, please see The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy.  We are able to expand our coverage without the practical limits of such a volume because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content".
 * WP:NOTPAPER also says  this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, and WP:SALAT is the appropriate content policy for the scope of list articles. NOTPAPER would suffice if this was a very long, but discriminate and verifiable list; say 500 distinctive elements. But open-ended lists compiled in this manner have more problems than just their length.  Them From  Space  15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT says "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections.". This list is split into numerous sections and so we're good.  Warden (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many other lists of this type(yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF, I know), and removing this one would be silly. I think it could be expanded to be more then a list dump of characters, but we can only wish. In that step of movement, I have added a source to the Pokemon section. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hammer; he said it all. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, this article will require maintenance to make sure it doesn't collapse into a mess, but the concept of cats in works of fiction does seem to have sufficient coverage to be notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs a lot of pruning otherwise it'll descend into an unmaintainable mess, would be better as a category but meh. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Article now has over 30 citations. Cats and kittens are cute. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the cue for some WikiLove, right? Warden (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Awwwwe... Gota love kittens. As this was sort of a reply to me, i wonder if I can commandeer the cuties for my user page? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Kitten, Kittynap and Kittens. Warden (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ta, ive been giving folk kittens since 2008, no one has given me one yet though :-( FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 FeydHuxtable has kittynapped your kitten! The kitten made them happy and they'd like to give you an enormously massive hug for inadvertently donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap a kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}


 * Keep but severely trim : whilst the topic-list is reasonable, it has been allowed to grow into a ludicrous laundry-list. All cats, not posessing their own article, or equivalent demonstration of notability, should be removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:04, 31 July 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.