Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular cat names (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Some of the information sourced to less reliable sources probably does need to be trimmed, though. And yes, I too was expecting something horribly unencyclopedic when I opened the page. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular cat names
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article purports to list the most popular cat names in many different countries. As you can plainly see, the article has an adequate quantity of sources. However, none of the sources corroborate the others' information. In other words, every last source has a vastly different list of the top 10 cat names. This can be evidenced by the table that I created for the United States section in this revision. That table shows many different versions of the top 10 cat names in the United States, all provided by equally "reliable" and "verifiable" sources (although how reliable and verifiable they are is unclear). In light of this, it becomes apparent that no authoritative list of the most popular cat names exists, presumably because no one has invested the time or money to do a scientific survey of a random sample of pet owners (and, to be sure, an analysis of a pet insurance company's customers is not a random sample, it is an analysis of pet names chosen by people who insure their cats). This disparity is not necessarily a shifting in the popularity of names over time (as some would argue), but rather the disparity is a result of a complete lack of reliable information based on scientific surveys and studies. Therefore, by providing a list of pet names (for any country) numbered from 1 to 10, we are implying that this is an authoritative list of the most popular names, and therefore we are providing false information and original research.

Furthermore, just because a fact can be sourced does not automatically mean that it is notable. Wikipedia is neither a directory of everything that exists or has existed nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.

Therefore, I submit that this article be deleted because its content is not notable, and because no authoritative source exists to provide accurate information on the subject. Snotty Wong  comment 23:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although I would like to keep it for very personal sentimental reasons which of course don't count here I can't see any real notability that warrants such article. TMCk (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is actually sourced pretty nicely. I was expecting terrible to the third power, but this strikes me as substantial. —Carrite 02:16, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not notable? There are 27 refs, and while some are trivial, I also see the The Times, Tampa Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Tribune, and so forth. And these are full articles about cat names, not articles where the subject is mentioned in passing. How much more notable can you get? As to whether the information in the article is (or can ever be) accurate... the point that lists generated from people buying pet insurance are skewed is well taken, but the article does say how these lists are generated. They are what they are. They are data. The reader can take them as they will, and no attempt to claim that these sources are more definitive than they are is made. The article is not perfect, but does present material from many sources in a way that readers and researchers might find useful. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest we overcome the WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH issues posed by this article? I'm positive I can find several dozen equally "reliable" sources for the most popular cat names in the United States, and they will all be completely different from one another.  Should we scour the web for every different source in existence and create an enormous table of the top 10 names from each source, as long as we treat each source equally and don't claim that any of the sources is definitive?    Snotty Wong   chat 03:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You see the "...The Times, Tampa Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Tribune, and so forth..." but you can't read them because they're not online references so what's your point when you don't know what they wrote? I can't read them either and the rest of the citations just don't fill in the blanks and refute non-notability and OR/sinth.TMCk (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The complaints about there being different lists is easily resolved by applying verifiability policy and some common sense. Go over each source available and decide, judging by its methodology, sampling etc. if it's good or not, and if the source itself is one we want to include as RS in general. This is not OR, this is about reliable sourcing - which Snottwong does not use consistently in the table s/he made. For example:
 * the online poll by the Washington Post can be thrown out, as it's got a small sample and online polls are dodgy. It's not meant to be authoritative.
 * The VPI stats, based on 475,000 pets looks rather more trustworthy, and the consistency in results year on year supports this. VPI is a large insurance company which we can assume checks its facts when it puts out data. There are bias issues with this sampling method, but so long as we are open about the sampling method, and as we've no reason to believe that there was something faulty in how the data were handled subsequent to collection, I can't see the problem with this one.
 * the youpet.com stats are no good because we have no idea of sample size or anything like that.
 * Petbabynames has a sample of over 20,000. It quite possibly has a skewed sample, as it's linked to babynames.com, and so will have a disproportionate number of young mothers dominating the sample. We just don't know. However, it comes up with similar results to VPI, so it's probably not that far wrong, but we don't have to use it. It can give some reassurance to us that VPI isn't making things up.
 * bowwow appears to state the sampling method - names ordered for its pet tag business, and has a pretty similar list of names to petbabynames and VPI - so it passes the smell test. But again, it's not as good as VPI as an RS, so perhaps we can just take it as something to boost our confidence in the VPI figures - which are based on the biggest sample size of all.
 * In short, it seems that if you start to apply some judgement to the sources, the wild differences disappear, and clear patterns emerge that can inform the reader. We can get stricter and start taking out sites that we're not comfortable with as RS regardless of how good their methodology appears to be, and reduce further the cognitive stress for the reader. To argue that the topic is non-notable is a non-starter. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It will be impossible to overcome the problems the list has without resorting to original research and synthesis. It isnt thre job of wikipedia to be an aggregator of other peoples lists. 81.106.133.151 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I think this article should be speedy kept because it's so obvious it is properly sourced, and whether we like it or not, cat names are a notable topic. The nominator actually makes good suggestions to improve the article (perhaps the lists should be removed, or the information should be presented differently), but I don't see any convincing argument to delete it. Laurent (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources look good enough for the Wikimedia world. Actually, it may be just the job of Wikipedia to aggregate other's notable lists.  The raison d'etre of Wikipedia is to be a source where even Merriam-Webster dare not tred (although "roofie" is in there, too).   That's why students, or biggest set of reasers, look to us first in their research paths. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nom doesn't address string of keeps apparent from earlier discussions, see no reason why consensus has shifted in the interim.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the previous AfD nominations bring up the point that no authoritative source exists for this information. Snotty Wong   confess 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was expecting something awful, but it's entertaining and probably as well-ref'd as such a list could be, especially the USA section. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even if there is no single authoritative source, the article provides a survey of the sources that exist, and provides their findings. If more authoritative sources exist, by all means add them; in the meanwhile, it is a well-referenced article about a subject of interest to many, and I judge its removal would be a net negative. --DGaw (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not what I expect for an encyclopedia. It is what makes Wikipedia look like a joke. Eucberar (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2010 (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.