Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petra (cat)


 * 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 delete. Unsourced, and I can't find any reliable sources that would meet WP:V which is over-riding policy. The question of merging all the cats into one article is a matter for post-AfD editorial action, merge-tagging and discussion, not for here. TerriersFan 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Petra (cat)
A cat who lived in Downing Street, London- nothing notable about this particular cat, and no sources to back up even his existence Astrotrain 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has been a Downing Street cat since the days of Henry VIII. Don't knock 500 years of tradition! :) The official Downing Street mouser in Churchill's time was named Margate. Dbromage  [Talk]  10:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced and dubious notability. If a source can be found, suggest merging into 10 Downing Street. Jakew 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all including Wilberforce (cat) and Humphrey (cat) into one article on the 10 Downing Street cats. Somewhat notable but we don't need an article on each of them. --Dhartung | Talk 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete all. I normally prefer not to mark my comments as strong, but in this case I'm going to make an exception.    The idea that the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion, is absurd.  I defy the author to show us any reliable independent secondary sources that address this matter in detail, and in a non-trivial manner (as required by WP:N). &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't go that far.  Humphrey (cat) is a sharp article.  Ichormosquito 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a detailed article, but that doesn't make it an acceptable article. I agree that the publishers of the cited sources are normally regarded as reliable, but in this case they only mention the subject in jest.  This is one of those awkward cases  where even the most reliable sources allow a non-notable, trivial article, because they think it will amuse their readers.  But just because they do, doesn't mean Wikipedia can.  I think we need to go further than WP:N in order to assess notability here.  Anyone object to testing it against WP:BIO?? &mdash;gorgan_almighty 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should take ourselves any more seriously than these esteemed sources. That being said, perhaps merging all these cats into some kind of combined article would be best. We have List of United States Presidential pets, after all. --Agamemnon2 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to 10 Downing Street cats per Dhartung. Ichormosquito 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Humphrey (cat) until more sources can be found. Ichormosquito 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fairly obviously fails notability. I've certainly not heard of him, unlike Humphrey, and I'm quite in to these things (animals and politics). Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An unsourced article on a cat. Merge if we must. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dhartung, definitely notable. Circeus 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dhartung, Downing Street cats are notable, individual Downing Street cats less so. — The Storm Surfer 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dhartung. If there were more on this cat, it would deserve a full-fledged article. vivacissamamente 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment True, but if it's all merged then that's going to mean that Humphrey's article, which does have a lot on it, is going too. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I don't understand. Do you mean to tell me that if Humphrey's article were supplemented with the content (such as it is) of this one, you would also demand that article be deleted too? I don't know how otherwise to parse your comment. &mdash;vivacissamamente 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment You said that if there were more on this cat it'd deserve its own article. But if it is merged then Humphrey's article (which does have a lot on it) would also be merged. Do you see? I'm not very good at expressing myself sorry. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a cat. Just because one 10 downing street cat was famous (because a very desperate politician spread a rumour that Tony Blair shot it) does not mean that they are all notable. I don't see much point in a merge- what would the article contain other than a list of cat names? Lurker  (said · done) 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that a list of 10 Downing Street cats would not be appropriate for Wikipedia? — The Storm Surfer 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An article about 10 Downing Street cats would be appropriate, it if had more content than just a list of names. Lurker  (said · done) 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Remember that once the merge has taken place, any original research in it will get removed pretty quickly. That begs the question of whether it's worth merging obvious original research content into the new article at all. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 12:40, 28 August 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.