Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pink cat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No obvious reason this article should even exist. Pepper Beast   (talk)  16:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Pure synthesis. Combining an adjective and a noun and then finding unrelated examples of such is not a coherent and notable encyclopedia topic. Reywas92Talk 17:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCASE. It gives the explicit example of Blue trucks not being an encyclopedic article as it would be original research so therefore this article should also apply.  -KAP03 (Talk &#x2022;&#x20;Contributions &#x2022;&#x20;Email) 19:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There does not appear to be any general coverage of pink cats, cf. black cats. Without coverage of pink cats as a topic, I don't think this meets our notability guidelines. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Summary: some cat owners died their cats pink. It is not cause for an encyclopedia entry. Rubbish. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sourced, well-written, meets WP:GNG (or at least did last time I looked at it). I have reverted back to the version that was nominated for WP:DYK and featured on the main page, with numerous citations to news sources such as BBC News and the Daily Telegraph. Nice to know people think my work is "rubbish" and want to speedy delete my content creation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And here's a cat that turned green! This cat's owners dyed it green. The Cheshire Cat is variously purple and blue. Eek! The Cat is purple; Doraemon is blue, as is Happy (manga character) and Oggy. This cat was found painted blue. Are you making Purple cat and Blue cat next? Without sources discussing the topic of cats being pink in particular as a whole, I have no idea why this would be an article, unless we need thousands more articles listing unrelated examples of creatures or objects that happen to share a particular trait. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources all talk about cases of pink cats. It was an article because a now-deceased Wikipedian thought it was a good idea. Respect those who are sadly no longer with us, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The test for notability is whether the topic has been written about in reliable sources. This has been covered in the news on a number of occasions, so in my opinion it passes. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, none of the sources have written about pink cats as a topic, only the individual cat in question in each instance. SpinningSpark 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - My stance is largely the same as Lord Bolingbroke's. While there may be some sources on individual cats that were pink, there does not appear to be coverage on the concept of "pink cats" as a whole.  As such, taking the various individual cases, and combining them into a single topical article, is largely WP:SYNTH.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:SYNTH of unrelated incidents and fictional characters. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The NOTNEWS policy is supposed to cover minor events that have one mention in local newspapers once, not sustained coverage over decades. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NOTCASE given that sources are isolated news stories that don't mention pink cats as a wider phenomenon. But it might be worth having a broader article about animal colourings which don't exist in nature and are applied artificially (like painted fish), or which only exist in fiction or legend. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, please. While the article is interesting and well-written, it is not exactly notable.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:JNN. Of course it's notable, see Template:Did you know nominations/Pink cat. I've written about 140 GAs and about 150 articles; I know exactly what I'm doing. Don't you even want a redirect? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with deletion per WP:NOTCASE. ~ riley  ( talk  ) 07:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish. Please read WP:VAGUEWAVE. Don't you even want to redirect? You know stupid opinions like this scare new users off, don't you? Go and write and article and see if somebody else can trash it, then you'll understand. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Taking it as read that this is fundamentally different from topics like black panther because it pulls together unrelated instances - we should admit that sometimes this approach works. See old favourite Exploding whale. But that's about something extraordinary with large amounts of coverage of the individual cases. Pink cat really feels like opening the door to a flood of undesirable compilation articles about trivia. Reywas' multicolored examples above make the point well IMO. I could set this kind of thing up for polka-dotted pants, collecting plenty of unrelated individual instances, and would absolutely expect it to be shot down. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to say that article becoming WP:DYK does not mean it cannot be deleted. In fact it states that "articles featured on DYK are not expected to be of the best quality." In addition, the DYK review did not seem that thorough. -KAP03 (Talk &#x2022;&#x20;Contributions &#x2022;&#x20;Email) 21:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.