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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:52, 11 November 2008

List of most popular cat names

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Strong Delete Non encyclopedic, non useful list of cat names. Also, it seems pretty pov and OR based. ~Pip 2 andahalf 05:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Actually, WP:CP I think would be more appropriate than ANI. MuZemike (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please discuss the article and not the nom. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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~~ Merge to cat and Redirect Looks much better now that it has been rewritten but I think it'll be better as a new section for the cat article, rather than on it's own. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per WP:UGH. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you try to explain why you think the article shoule be deleted? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Now that the article has been rewritten from some good sources, it is worth keeping. I favour changing the scope to cover pet names in general since there seems to be a significant overlap between cats and dogs, for example. But that's not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Can you try to explain why you feel that cat names are not encyclopedic? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTDIR WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have completely rewritten the article, removed all of the original research/ synthesis and made it encyclopedic. It's not the best article in history, but I think it clearly passes muster. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we change the wordy article title to "popular cat names" and add some redirects? That would be fabulous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::'''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. [[User:MadScot|MadScot]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:SALAT#Appropriate_topics_for_lists|appropriate topic for a list]], as it does not "contribute to the state of human knowledge".    --[[User:Omarcheeseboro|Omarcheeseboro]] ([[User talk:Omarcheeseboro|talk]]) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
+*'''<s>Delete</s> Merge to [[cat]] and Redirect''' Looks much better now that it has been rewritten but I think it'll be better as a new section for the [[cat]] article, rather than on it's own.    --[[User:Omarcheeseboro|Omarcheeseboro]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Theseeker4|Theseeker4]] ([[User talk:Theseeker4|talk]]) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 *<s>'''Delete''' per [[WP:UGH]]</s>. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)