Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Stubbs (cat)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created initially to note the novelty of a small town electing a cat as its mayor. Further developments have demonstrated that cat was never actually never selected as the town's mayor by any process, electoral or otherwise. It is apparently just a term of endearment extended by the citizenry. It's difficult to find the proper reason for deletion, as this cat is so incredibly unworthy of an article. One editor had suggested WP:1E, but even this suggests Stubbs had a role in one event (the election?) when it fact he had a role in zero events. The totality of the story is that some townfolks in a small outpost convinced some suckers from out of town that they had elected the cat as mayor in a write-in vote. We would not have an article on the election (as it did not occur), and we surely would not have an article on the town suckering a UPI writer (who actually preceded an account of the election with "As the story goes'). Even if the election story was true, the election itself would be the article. But as the election did not occur, there is nothing remotely of encyclopedic value here. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it's a bit of a gag story, but there's enough coverage out there from over the years that I think it meets wp:GNG. He got a relatively decent amount of coverage over the years simply because hehe cat mayor, but it isn't local - CNN, Time, and Fox all have articles about him. I could buy WP:1E if it was just that brief spurt, but he got headlines in 2013 when he was attacked by a dog - NBC, CBS, Washington Times, and CNN all featured him. Then again in 2014 there was coverage when he "attempted" to run for US Senate. So yeah, I'd say he crossed the bar for notability. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I object because these are all "...and finally tonight" stories predicated on allowing the (heretofore) reliable sources to reiterate a dumb gag, whose humor only persists with its veracity (i.e. "LOL, a town elected a cat mayor! How hilarious!" "Actually they didn't; he's not the mayor at all." "Oh."). A person coming across this article would be spellbound trying to understanding what exactly this cat did. I think it's fine that we created the article when an RS reported it, but once it became clear that the story was untrue, the notability disappears. Otherwise the first line should be "Stubbs was a cat who was the subject of a silly lie foolishly exacerbated by lazy editors." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:1E, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AREYOUKIDDINGME. I'm sorry but I don't care how broadly you construe our inclusion guidelines. This is a joke and is not a suitable subject for anything that wants to credibly call itself an encyclopedia except maybe on April Fools Day. The fact that some in the media played along with it for laughs is neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The fact that some in the media played along with it for laughs is really all the keep !voters have going for them to justify their arguments.  I witnessed this exact same bit of Kool-Aid drinking in the last AFD I commented on, where folks evidently believe that a reliable source is determined solely by which website you found the particular source at.  I address that point in greater detail below. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Whether or not it's a gag, the cat's notability has been proven via being discussed by a number of major publications over a number of years. As far as I'm concerned, this is a pretty cut-and-dry case. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BIO, "The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about a person, then that person's name (such as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe") would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident." Pretty clear cut. Talkeetna, Alaska has everything we need to know about Stubbs.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that it's undue weight in that article in its present state. Look through prior discussions and you'll see that Stubbs is deemed notable because Stubbs is the subject of coverage during Wikipedia's lifetime.  Stubbs is subordinate to Nagley's Store.  Horace Willard Nagley, both Senior and Junior, were the subject of coverage that spans a combined total of around 80 or 90 years.  Someone attempted to claim that neither Nagley could be considered notable, which I can only assume is due to the fact that the vast majority of this coverage occurred during the early to middle 20th century.  Because this is after the cutoff date for expiration of copyright, and before the rise of the web and Wikipedia in particular, a Google search will only mislead anyone attempting to gauge the notability of a topic from those eras.  That it's not a matter of Google-fueled systemic bias, but rather a black-and-white indication of notability or non-notability, is a rather common POV around here, and a self-serving one to boot.  We're already too much of a compendium of fleeting trending topics from the past X number of years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  06:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The references indicate that GNG notability is met. I am not a cat person and don't live in Alaska and I know about this cat.--Rpclod (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is very well sourced and does in fact claim notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Possibly related to his recent death. We don't delete articles when human mayors die, so why delete this one? If the veracity is a problem, add a section on it.-- Auric    talk  23:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, to repeat the point, he is NOT the mayor of anything, even as a gag. The gag was that locals SAID that he was the mayor. This cat's notability is defined by his presence in RS, not by anything that got him there. The thing that got him there was either confusion, a lie, or a wink-and-a-nod. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability has been plenty well established over the years, I'd say. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For what is the cat notable? Presence in RS does not constitute notability in and of itself; it is proof of the underlying source of notability. Unless the article is about the hoax, there exists no story to establish notability for. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a textbook example of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - the nominator admits as much, saying "it's difficult to find the proper reason to delete as this cat is so unworthy of an article." Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources, and as Nohomersryan has demonstrated, it easily passes WP:GNG. And GreatCaesarsGhost, it doesn't help your case to badger every keep !voter. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not badgering the voters; I'm debating the editors. I'm new here and I'm working on establishing my sea legs by engaging in debate based on a careful reading of the relevant policy. I fully expect to get smacked down by the vets. What I don't expect is them sticking to one policy while ignoring all the others that serve to regulate it. WP:GNG is not the end of the story. There's WP:1E, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTSTUPID, and the one ring to rule them all, WP:IAR. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you don't spend much time over at RFA. The amount of hectoring that occurs there towards those who don't express the "right" opinions makes this look like child's play.  It's so bad, it leads one to believe that the fix is in and that we only have RFAs for the sake of appearing that there's any sort of transparency going on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hallelujah! Strong delete – I'm the honorary Archbishop of Canterbury and the love child of Carmen Miranda and Charles Nelson Reilly, as well as the reincarnation of Rahsaan Roland Kirk.  Of course, such claims have as much basis in fact as most of the "reliably sourced" nonsense found either in the article or in the sources.  Anyone who would argue to keep this garbage is really saying that our ultimate purpose is to provide clickbait to a cherry-picked list of other websites, and that the agenda of said cherry-picked websites automatically becomes our agenda.  I would also invoke WP:NOTNEWS, but we've obviously become so much of a news site of late that we have editors mocking fellow editors for raising such concerns .  Furthermore, this sends the message that I'm wasting my time making positive contributions to the encyclopedia when I could be engineering publicity stunts like this to game the media and hence the encyclopedia, seeing as how the inclusion bar is so low.
 * Upon noticing the increase in the juvenility factor coincidental with the cat's death that was coming across my watchlist, I started a discussion elsewhere about the reliability of the sources in this case, but didn't finish it before I had to leave for church. Coming back and subsequently noticing this discussion, I started over, because this venue is far more appropriate for that discussion.  I won't have time to pour over everything right this moment, but I did click on the very first source, from KTUU.  Here's one passage that has so many holes, one could drive the Space Shuttle through it:"As the story goes, 15 years ago several of the town residents didn't like the candidates who were running for mayor of Talkeetna, so as a joke, they encouraged enough people to elect Stubbs the cat as a write-in candidate, and he actually won."  Fortunately and thankfully, an IP left a very important clue on the article's talk page that our so-called professional and "reliable" journalists failed to notice, what with their awesome fact-checking skills and all.  And this particular story was written by someone who actually lives in Alaska and has easy access to the information detailed below?  Amazing...
 * To mirror another comment, "As the story goes" should have been your first clue that something's rotten in Denmark, or however that expression goes. An apocryphal story suddenly becomes a reliable source merely on account of who publishes it?  Again, amazing...
 * "15 years ago". Lessee: KTUU published this story in 2012.  2012 minus 15 is 1997.  The Alaska Division of Elections conducts elections for organizing or dissolving municipalities in Alaska.  According to the relevant page on their website (see here), there was no such election in 1997, as the story strongly implies multiple times.  However, there was an election in 2002.  I would say that five years is quite a gap inasfar as factual accuracy is concerned.  Can you tell me what you were doing five years ago today?
 * In the famous words of Ron Popeil, "But wait, there's more!". Clicking on the page containing the election results disproves much of the rest of the statement.  "...several of the town residents didn't like the candidates who were running for mayor of Talkeetna, so as a joke, they encouraged enough people to elect Stubbs the cat as a write-in candidate, and he actually won".  There are several falsehoods implied or stated here.  There was a mayoral election as the IP claimed, but it may not be clear to political neophytes that the legality of that election was contingent on the passage of Proposition One.  As that question failed, it rendered the rest of the results null and void.  Article X, § 2 of the state constitution makes it clear that as Talkeetna is not a borough or a city, it is not a legally incorporated municipality and therefore has no legal authority to declare a mayor, despite the source implying otherwise.  One would believe from this story that Talkeetna has always had a mayor and in this instance did away with the position in favor of an "honorary" mayor.  Most importantly, the bulk of that statement is rendered false not only by the failure of the incorporation question, but by the results of the mayoral election which show that 392 votes were cast in the election for mayor, with 298 going to the two (presumably human) candidates on the ballot, 46 going to write-ins and 48 ballots left blank.
 * I'll try and go through the rest of the sources when I have a chance, but I have a strong suspicion that I will only encounter more of the same. Encouraging people to blindly parrot particular sources because you've deemed them "reliable", even when very little actual reliability is evident, is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.  This is entirely too similar to the media herds showing up down the road in Wasilla in August and September 2008.  Lots of concern for going through the motions and producing by-the-numbers journalistic content, very little concern for facts or portraying the community to their audiences in a proper light.  The reversal of long-standing consensus on our coverage of the subtopic of mayors of Wasilla was the result of one editor's crusade based on his personal impressions of what is and isn't notable, aided by the few editors who bothered to show up at the AFDs to back him.  Armed with such "overwhelming consensus", he proceeded to eradicate any factual information about mayors of Wasilla, increasing the amount of undue weight shown towards Sarah Palin and also leaving in place all the empty content about Levi Johnston's "mayoral candidacy".  There are many parallels to this situation.  Johnston never filed formal candidacy paperwork and his "campaign" was almost entirely based on issuing press releases, expecting that his celebrity was all he needed to get media coverage.  Even Timmy from South Park could figure out that this "reliable" coverage was barely removed from those press releases, and that none of those outlets followed up on the story, such as at anytime close to election day where actual facts about his candidacy could be more easily had.  The Wikipedia editor responsible for all this cherry-picked tabloid sources in a BLP and then defended that practice at BLPN.  Obviously, the community thought this was A-OK.  We even had one person come to the talk page and make comments to the effect of "We all know that Johnston really didn't run for mayor.  Why don't you just let these editors have their fun?".  I suppose you're going to tell me that we're really not trying to kill off the encyclopedia by taking stances like this?  Uh huh, sure... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, you've disproven the fact that the cat was "mayor". But how does it relate to WP:GNG? It's not like the article doesn't mention the fact that some people think it's nothing but a stunt (admittedly it's a brief mention, but the article is pretty short anyway and could be expanded regardless). Nohomersryan (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You ask how this relates to notability? As was mentioned previously, notability has to do with significant coverage in reliable sources.  This has been met in this case, at least superficially.  The reason I say "at least superficially" is that there's another piece of the puzzle that most everyone appears to be conveniently avoiding.  Namely, what is or isn't a reliable source does not strictly boil down to which website published the source in question.  There's also the matter of the existence of a fact-checking process.  As I point out in some detail above, I perused one source and found it to be absolutely riddled with factual errors, thanks to the hint left by the IP on the talk page.  WP:V does not mean that you pick one or more sources out of thin air and attempt to con everyone into believing that those sources equal all that needs to be said on a particular matter, and that contradictory information provided by sources which are credible but perhaps don't precisely fit the definition of tertiary sources can be categorically dismissed for that reason.  That makes us out to be another media outlet which tries to copy every other media outlet in the hunt for a "good story", instead of a credible, factually accurate information resource.  I went and performed some rather simple fact checking that this so-called professional journalist didn't bother with.  The Division of Elections office in Anchorage is less than a mile from the KTUU studios.  It wouldn't have been burdensome in the least for him or his editor to pay the office a visit and perform that fact-checking, or even staying put in their offices and phoning or e-mailing the elections office for the same information.  Why wasn't this fact checking done?  It's obvious to me that the facts would get in the way of a "good story", but perhaps someone has a better theory. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is the enduring relevance? How does this pass NOTNEWS or the 10YT? How does this pass INDISCRIMINATE? Just because something gets news coverage does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. In fact most things that get in the news, don't. News coverage, which lets be blunt here, is the sole basis for any claim to notability, is not an automatic guarantee of meeting our criteria. In this instance it almost certainly fails our criteria based on the exceptions noted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS and 10YT are both arguments related to recentism, which I would say don't apply here as there's been coverage stretching over several years and the article has existed for 5 years now (and it's not particularly a recent event since the cat was "honorary mayor" since 1997). Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you think applies to this article? The article isn't a work, so it can't be "Summary-only descriptions of works", obviously this isn't a song either, I don't see any "unexplained statistics" and obviously a cat cannot have "exhaustive logs of software updates". Nohomersryan (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "...the cat was 'honorary mayor' since 1997". By whose account?  You mean the same people responsible for this publicity stunt in the first place?  I've already asserted their lack of credibility and the lack of fact checking evident in the one source I perused.  Obviously, since Talkeetna is not an incorporated community, they have as much legal authority to conduct local elections as they do to declare a position of mayor, namely zero.  The only local election which would have occurred was the one conducted by the state on the matter of incorporation.  As I pointed out, this election occurred in 2002, not 1997.  Once again, you're attempting to assert that we're obligated to blindly parrot journalists even when it's blatantly obvious that no fact checking occurred?  That's conforming to a controlled narrative, not to reliable sources.  There's nothing "reliable" whatsoever in a piece where there's no fact checking, regardless of who wrote or "edited" it.  From the tone of this discussion, it sounds to me like the other sources have the exact same problems, but I won't have time tonight to look over them.  As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument, perhaps they meant WP:TRIVIA.  The passage about afternoon catnip in a wine glass is nothing but trivia.  I'm sure I could find other examples if I bothered. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * keep - If wikipedia can't have a sense of humor please....Masterknighted (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability clearly established by RS. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stubbs honorary term as mayor has been well recorded and obituaries have been produced and it is good to have articles based on verifiable sources that are lighter in tone. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. From all of the news coverage, the notability is definitely there. Isseubnida (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only of you ignore 1E, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTNEWS, enduring relevance and the 10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily a notable cat. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep a Mayor better than the POTUS, surely notable .-- Stemoc 05:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried really hard to make the obvious joke here, but it just didn't grab me. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why should it not be possible to find neutral information here on a cat that is on the front page of media all over the World ? --Pugilist (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable hoax (c.f. Pope Joan) and a potential to be a useful article pointing out the facts, which is what Wikipedia is here for. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine had articles about Stubbs the cat; the article has reliable sources. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agree the cat has had reliable coverage and has gained notability. This isn't even a real hoax; perhaps a misleading. Please. We need a bit of human interest articles on Wikipedia and unlike some cat articles, this is well sourced (Wall Street Journal how could one argue against this?) and UPI. Fylbecatulous talk 12:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including national-level news coverage in the United States. North America1000 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep on the merits, owing to obvious notability and depth of coverage, much of it contemporaneous and predating the subject's death. I'm loathe to bring up any point that might trigger WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the Delete arguments (and the nominator's rationale) remind me of His Royal Highness Norton I, Emperor of the United States. It doesn't matter one bit that Norton was emperor of nothing - he was noted as such, with varying levels of seriousness. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the cat was elected as mayor of anything - what matters is that he was noted as such in reliable sources. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable cat in the sense that it has been covered extensively by news media. The cat's actual role may have been embellished, but in that case the Wikipedia article can serve to present the facts and correct those misconceptions. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest Speedy Close per WP:SNOW. I don't agree with the consensus, and thus will not be striking my !vote. However, consensus is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. It's time to close this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Roxy the Mayor. bark 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. 128.227.155.88 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC) — 128.227.155.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To Roxy the dog and the IP – see WP:JUSTAVOTE. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To Pawnkingthree see WP:SNOW -Roxy the dog. bark 18:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, a bigger issue would be that the IP has never edited before ever. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely assume that the outcome of this AfD is not going to hinge on the one and only single word edit from an IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per above keep votes showing that notability has been established. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep ("speedy"), clearly press coverage signifies notability -- "speedy" because the subject is currently undergoing significant international coverage, and the tag should be removed due to expected increase in traffic (albeit ephemeral). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets GNG and notability established by RS. How many individual animals' deaths are featured in major news outlets like The Guardian, CNN, or Newsweek? Moreover, the cat was notable prior to death as he was featured in the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, CNN and others back in 2013.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. To meet the threshold of notability, the nomination seems not only to require Stubbs to have been actually elected as a mayor, but apparently also to have performed mayoral duties. That's a fairly tall order. GregorB (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is, of course, nonsense as notability is not necessarily determined by role or actions. Notability is determined by significant coverage by independent reliable sources over time. That is clearly demonstrated here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree; even if it is a hoax or gimmick, it is undeniably notable. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See my previous comments about Kool-Aid drinking. Myself and others are pointing out in some detail that the claims of notability found in the sources are rooted in certain "facts", despite abundant evidence that those "facts" were made up out of thin air by the interviewee(s) and taken at face value by so-called professional journalists, that no actual fact checking took place, and that it was a piece of cake to verify that the interviewee's claims amount of one steaming pile.  Yet most everyone in this discussion has the gall to keep calling them "reliable sources".  WHY???  Some other famous words come to mind, namely those of Barack Obama: "They’re trying to bamboozle you.  Don’t let people turn you around because they’re just making stuff up. That’s what they do. They try to bamboozle you, hoodwink you".  Alex Jones is "fake news" but this isn't?  And here I thought that the expression "is that guy kidding or what?" only referred to Frank Zappa's famous diatribe about Peter Frampton ("These people are fucked up.  They are very fucked up.").  And I haven't even addressed whether the claims of the keep voters of "significant coverage" are really a matter of the same few stories and same few non-facts being propagated endlessly from one website to the next, a common scam around AFD.  This leads to another question I don't expect anyone to answer.  How do you suppose that folks will continue to come to this website and contribute when we're sending such a clear message that our only purpose here is to be automatons parroting the agendas of news editors?  I'm not a teenager or twentysomething living in mommy's basement, I'm 50 years old and have been working for a living more or less continuously since 1983.  As such, doing someone else's bidding for them is the sort of work I expect to be paid for.  If I'm coming here as a volunteer, I expect to use my experience and judgement to guide content and hope that those will be respected by fellow editors.  Telling me that we're here strictly to parrot information published by a cherry-picked list of other websites, at face value, without regard for its factual accuracy, really tells me that you don't respect that experience and judgement. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ad Orientem I don't have an opinion on the actual article, but there is clearly consensus to keep. -A la d   insane   (Channel 2)  00:44, 25 July 2017 (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.