Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names

List of most popular cat names

List of most popular cat names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article contains WP:OR and indeed contains an instruction/request that people continue to add OR to the list. It would be possible to source a list of popular pet names - and I did it when the article was prodded, see previous revisions - but original author reverted to the OR-format AND removed the prod without addressing the issue. So, here we are at AfD. MadScot (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete obviously, as nominator. I don't believe article as written should be here at all, and I doubt that even a sourced version purged of the OR is actually encyclopedic either. MadScot (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do so many nominators feel that a "delete as nominator" is necessary? Just curious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen some noms not actually !vote for delete, which is a bit bizarre, but it's perhaps best that the nom at least make their stance clear, and this seems one way to do it. MadScot (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is Not: lists of. But by all means you can put up on Myspace or Facebook. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic in any way shape or form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am changing my vote radically. I investigated a bit more, and I believe this article just needs to be made encyclopedic. I've posted my suggestions in that regard on the article's discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Under what CSD Criteria could you speedy delete this? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Non encyclopedic, non useful list of cat names. Also, it seems pretty pov and OR based. ~Pip2andahalf 05:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep But revert back to the sourced version. While quirky, this seems encyclopedic and there's no reason to delete the article because a disruptive editor is insisting that it be a collection of OR - WP:ANI might be a better way of dealing with this. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:CP I think would be more appropriate than ANI. MuZemike (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, please discuss the article and not the nom. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject of which pet names are common and/or popular can well be considered to be encyclopedic. But, the article should be properly sourced and can then (with sources) be expanded further. A good version to revert back to would be this one [1] in my opinion. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Problem I see with the idea of reverting to the sourced version is, as has been pointed out since I did it, it's actually a copyvio. I can't see how one could source a list without it being a copyvio of the source, since it's practically impossible to rewrite a list to eliminate the copyvio problem. That's why I abandoned the idea of trying to get the article into shape. MadScot (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That version is not a copyvio, but a limited quote of the source (only a selection of the information in the source is presented here), with a proper reference. --17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I feel this is not an appropriate topic for a list, as it does not "contribute to the state of human knowledge". --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic and original research. This is the type of entry that you would see on a blog, not in an encyclopedia. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UGH. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you try to explain why you think the article shoule be deleted? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Seriously, cat-names? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not ... well... whatever this article represents. Omar's take is the most accurate on this item.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you try to explain why you feel that cat names are not encyclopedic? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While perhaps you can explain to me why you feel a list of popular cat names is encyclopedic? An encyclopedia is a source of information that increases human knowledge, it is not a listing of every item that catches a flight of fancy. The article at issue does not reach the standards for a serious publication. I'm sorry, but I think it should be speedy deleted on that basis.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Nothing but original research which includes syntheses of researched material. Also, verifiability is sorely lacking due to the method used to compile the list. Themfromspace (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you try to explain why you consider this original research, when the references are clearly present in the article? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)