Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mooka Mookason


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. The article has been deleted by User:Geogre Pilatus 12:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Mooka Mookason
This article was apparently created by User:Francoislamini (Contributions) about his cat. Now, I like cats, but this one is not especially notable. User has not edited since creating this article in July. Delete, along with Image:Jungle_Mooka.jpg. Joel7687 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as .  I have listed it as such.  Consider merge with Pussy.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, one Google hit,, but as for this speedy business... do you really think cats are "persons"? CanadianCaesar 02:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But its a biography of a cat.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article about a non-noatable cat is not an unreasonable thing to have listed as . I relisted the article for speedy, but typed out  . This takes more time, however, and just prolongs a process. The article will obviously end up being deleted, but on AfD it will require lots more effort that would be better spent elsewhere. Storys about cats are still somewhat like bios. Even you voted delete! &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under A7 if covered by guidelines, delete as vanity otherwise and change the guidelines allowing us to delete pets, housing and other items associated with non-notable people to be speedy deleted unless they are notable in their own right. If a person is not-notable, it would be difficult to argue that their cat is notable. The claim is that a game is being written about the moggy but this game has not been completed, let alone sold. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - nn - I agree A7 should include "persons and animals" JoJan 08:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete nn. *drew 09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not, and should not be a speedy candidate, because it makes a claim of notability: Being part of "project mooka". OK, not a very convincing claim at the moment but a claim. A cat can be notable if it's the subject of a notable project, and for all we know project mooka will become one. Kappa 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Project Mooka" isn't well attested; the Sourceforge link on the page is invalid. As such, the claim of notability is spurious, and it becomes a candidate for speedy deletion. (I put the speedy tag back on). Pilatus 13:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Claims of notability must be evaluated in Afd. Kappa 14:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Once the game becomes notable the cat can be mentioned in that article as the inspiration for the game. BTW the link to project Mooka leads to an invalid project page. CambridgeBayWeather 10:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete nn-bio. Neier 11:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Why should Mooka be different from any other black cat? Well, she isn't." 'Nuff said. - Sensor 11:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, author is "trying" to put the cat in a game. Cat itself is unremarkable and not different from a cartload of other cats. On top of that the project is "expected to make this idea a reality". There's thousends of projects that start and never get finished. Delete until such a time the project which is its assertion of notability actually exists (and is verifiable). Then we can reconsider it. - Mgm|(talk) 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedy. Non-notable cat with a non-existent "Project Mooka". Andrew pmk | Talk 15:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete --MacRusgail 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete we used to say things like "What if someone wrote an article about their cat?" when debating notability as a deletion criterion. Well, I guess it finally happened. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  19:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We are debating if the article should be deleted now or in five days from now because someone asserted that that cat is the protagonist in a video game for which no one has proof that it even exists exists. Stop the insanity! Pilatus 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We are debating whether the article should be deleted with or without the community getting a chance to see it first. Kappa 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For this article I see a consensus for a speedy delete. Actually this entry is a poor test case to discuss where CSD:A7 should stop, it's so obvious that the article ought to go away. (Contestants on reality TV shows tend to be kept, but should an entry on an otherwise unknown person on a planned reality TV show be sent to AfD instead of getting speedily deleted? I think not.) Pilatus 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We never keep anything based on potential future achievements. Otherwise, we'd be keeping articles on babies because they might win an Oscar or Nobel Prize someday. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So if a baby was the unique focus of a progam designed to produce a future Nobel Prize winner, it would still be a speedy candidate? Kappa 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are lots of those programs going on already. They're called overachieving parents.  Seriously, this isn't Laika we're talking about here.  This is some dude who kinda-sorta thinks it might be cool to make a game about his cat, but hasn't bothered to put up the Sourceforge page yet (or anything else, either, since Mooka Mookason gets 0 Google hits).  Let's look at this piece-by-piece for a moment: Most games are notable, but not every one.  Many game characters are notable, many are not.  People/creaures on whom game characters are based are rarely notable (even Mario Segali is barely a stub).  But none of that even applies here because the game hasn't even been created yet, nor even started by the looks of things. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're saying that we shouldn't have the chance to double check. Kappa 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, there's nothing to check or double-check. The linked-to Sourceforge site doesn't exist, and Google shows zero results.  Neither does Yahoo or AllTheWeb.  I suppose that one could go to the library and look up Mooka Mookason in the card catalog, the Reader's Guide To Periodical Literature and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica too, but since I'm not in an absurdist mood today I'll skip that step and assume there's nothing about Mooka in there either.  If any of this were in the least bit disputable, I'd agree with you.  Currently I read 9 "speedy" votes and 7 "delete" votes, with nary a "keep" vote in site, even from yourself.  A strong consensus already exists to delete, and further voting would be no more than an exercise in beaurocracy.  In fact, come to think of it, WP policy actually discourages voting on AfDs if "consensus you agree with has already been formed".  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  00:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL I wrote that part, the reason I haven't said "delete" is because there is already a consensus to do so. We don't need any more votes, but also we don't need to rewrite the speedy policy just because this article happens to be about a real cat not a fictional one. Kappa 00:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The absurdity of the situation isn't about real vs. fictional, but animal vs. human. I've written an article about a dog, so I know something in this area.  If this article were about a human, it would be an easy uncontested speedy.  Since it's a cat, it doesn't strictly fit the letter of the speedy criteria, but many feel it does fit the spirit, which is why there are more Speedy votes than Delete votes. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  01:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If articles which claim notability are speedy deleted without scrutiny, the system is broken. Kappa 01:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ...which leads us back to my original statement, that claims of notability can't be based on potential future achievements. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 02:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If the assertion of notability of a cat is based on a non-existent online game project it should be deleted. Online game projects should be googleable. If they aren't it's speedy worthy. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per all of the above arguments --Icarus 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not speedy, but probably should be. --rob 21:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!)  06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't think this qualifies under A7, but it should. Pets can be notable, though, like if the they talk or explode. Anyway. --JJay 11:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. I think CSD:A7 should explicitly include animals, at least pets, but I guess it doesn't. MCB 18:05, 23 October 2005 (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.