Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The King o' the Cats


 * 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. John254 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The King o' the Cats
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A good faith search of books and the web did not identify any reason to think that this story is notable. The fact that it is a real folktale is not a claim of notability. The notability guideline for books (while not strictly applicable) gives a sense of why not:


 * 1) The book has been the subject of a work means non-trivial treatment (excluding mere mention of the book)
 * 2) The book has won a major literary award.
 * 3) The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a notable motion picture.
 * 4) The book is the subject of instruction at multiple schools.
 * 5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

The article (and subsequent searching) does not find any of these criteria to be applicable, nor is the general notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in [independent] reliable sources".

Bongomatic (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first external link mentions plenty of reliable sources to draw from. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, reliability or verifiability in and of itself is not a substitute for notability. Do you believe that the references constitute "significant coverage", or that they demonstrate the satisfaction of any of the notability guidelines for books? Bongomatic (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Recounted by Mary Shelley in "On Ghosts" see here for an online version (last page), her account was written about here, and the tale is sufficiently well known to be written into a children's book, and a children's film. There are also some hits on JSTOR that appear promising, but I don't have access to them. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have demonstrated that the existence of the story cannot be denied. But which of these represents a "notable motion picture", "major literary award", or anything that goes to notability rather than verifiability? Is it your claim that every story mentioned or quoted by a notable author is notable? That approach is specifically is rejected by WP:BK. Bongomatic (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I consider WP:BK to inapposite to this case - this is a public domain folk tale of unknown origin and age. It has been treated by independent sources. I feel that this meets the general notability guideline. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's not on all fours with WP:BK, but since the references given do not constitute "significant" coverage (a half page in various books), I was trying to find more (somewhat analogous) guidelines to argue for inclusion. If the coverage cited is "significant", it's hard to know what brief in passing mentions could be considered as not significant. Bongomatic (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The coverage far exceeds "mention in passing" and is "significant." You are setting the bar higher than for other things which have been found to be substantial or significant coverage. Edison (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this can be deleted because it is not the subject of a "notable motion picture" or "major literary award", then so can the Epic of Gilgamesh. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * keep artifacts of cultural history are notable, especially if mentioned by notable authors such as Mary Shelley. Gets plenty of mentions .  Historical items have proven that they're less ephemeral and thus have more intrinsic notability.  They are an asset to an encyclopedia which pretends to significance. Sticky Parkin 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Many reliable sources have substantial coverage of this folk tale, making it notable. Edison (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator.  Applying the guidelines for book notability to folktales is problematic and far from the best course and there is ample evidence of notability in the independant sources covering this folk tale. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as with all classic folk songs, all classic folk tales are individually notable--though if they are international, we would I think normally have an article at the English version & redirect the others. DGG (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a well-shared view. Is it indicated in any of the stated or proposed policies and guidelines? Bongomatic (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentWP:N fits nicely for a folktale with many reliable and independent sources having substantial coverage of it. Folk tales are part of the shared cultural heritage of many nations sometimes going back a very long time. The major ones sem highly encyclopedic and satisfy the notability requirement. Edison (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:N with plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2008 (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.