Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat)

Tater Tot (cat)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Tater Tot (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage fails WP:SUSTAINED, and the article fails WP:ONEEVENT. Just one internet fad subject of hundreds. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Utah. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Tater Tot the disabled kitten is not merely a fad. The reach of this kitten is global, and has dominated social media, the internet, news, and has affected people's lives in many ways that random fads do not. People's lives are being changed. That is not a fad. CTR1874 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete good to see that people are as hyperbolic about kittens as ever. Quite literally the dictionary example of an Internet fad, not generally notable at all and honestly only has a bunch of articles about it because churnalism is what we're stuck with now. AryKun (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep he's so perfect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannajh (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - We have a glut of articles during the short period of time when they were a popular meme, and essentially no coverage since then. As said by the nom, this indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that would indicate notability. I would also be fine if this were sent back to Draft, and then either restored or covered at List of Internet phenomena if there was ever later sources to provide evidence that there was true sustained coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Not a bad article. Agletarang (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep This is a great article for the famous tater tot cat that has been seen by millions of people. I’m not sure why it’s even being considered for deletion. There are thousands of news sources covering tater tot.btwfrost (talk) 1:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Btwfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep There are numerous articles covering various internet famous cats who more than fit criteria for coverage. This one is no different. To target a disabled kitten's who passed away so recently is profoundly ignorant considering Wikipedia pages excel at immortalizing figures who have made an impact on many people's lives.Gorokag (talk) 2:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as it meets GNG and has worldwide coverage. I'll IAR and do OTHERTHINGS by pointing out the fact that various incidents like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) also fail WP:SUSTAINED but were kept on the grounds of GNG. Tater Tot's sticker has the same breadth of coverage. There's no reason to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Kericho truck crash but not this. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Bit late to the reply, but are you seriously arguing that an accident that killed 52 people is comparable to a disabled kitten that lived for one and a half months? I fully expected to see an accident that killed like 3 people when I clicked that link, but that is honestly a very bad comparison. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per above: Fails SUSTAINED, ONEEVENT, NOTNEWS. This is an Internet fad that someone managed to make an article about. A merge into List of Internet phenomena, as suggested by Rorshacma, is also acceptable. But not a stand-alone article for something that lasted a handful of months and which is unlikely to receive any real coverage in the future. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Either Delete or Redirect and merge salvageable content to List of Internet phenomena. Unfortunately, while the story behind this can be emotional, it ultimately has not enough notability to stand as an article on Wikipedia. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete/partial merge per AryKun. We really can't be having articles on anything that goes viral these days. People like cute animals but there should be sustained coverage beyond a brief burst of news for a stand-alone article on a cat. Few of these sources are actually original reporting, it's easy to repackage the same content. Maybe Cats and the Internet could include this, but there would just be so many of them. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I created an article about "viral pet" that seems to have withstood so far: Eclipse (dog). But she had at least 5 years' sustained coverage. I don't see sustained coverage here. However WP:SUSTAINED mentions organizations and future events by name, and by inference living persons, none of which may pertain to this article. I'd like to hear more debate about that. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Merge. This doesn't meet SUSTAINED, or NOTNEWS, nor arguably ONEEVENT. But such "Internet-famous pets" do probably meet the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE threshold for inclusion in a list. It's correct that "we really can't be having articles on anything that goes viral these days"; it's a never-ending and increasing amount of very short-lifecycle stuff. But almost-notable animals are probably of borderline encyclopedic interest enough to listify them in a general article on "Internet stuff", or even a more specific split-off article about such animals, if something like List of Internet phenomena gets too long. All the emoting in the keep comments above generally makes me lean even stronger toward merge, or even delete if came to that. This is not a venue for trying to guilt-shame other editors for not being as heartstring-pulled as you are about cutesy animals (and I'm probably in more cute cats Facebook groups that you are anyway. >;-) PS: List of individual cats is another potential merge target, and/or another source of entries to split off into a list of Internet cats or something, if we wanted to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 00:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• WP:ONEEVENT, if it applies to cats, would merely suggest changing the scope of the article to the notable event, not an outright deletion. Also, I don't think we can really evaluate WP:SUSTAINED after one month for something that was covered for multiple weeks. That said, I'd be fine with a merge to List of individual cats or Cats and the Internet. Otherwise, keep for at least a few more months to evaluate SUSTAINED. —siroχo 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - If the issue is that it hasn't been long enough to establish if something is actually notable, wouldn't the ideal solution be to Draftify it for a couple months to see if additional coverage is forthcoming and restore it at that point, rather than Keeping it until then? Rorshacma (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be okay with draftifying it to see if more coverage appears. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm generally ok with that idea. But in hopes of avoiding backdoor deletion, is there someone interested in maintaining the draft? —siroχo 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, as above. Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep There is a lot of reliable sourcing here. Pages for animals are more complicated. PickleG13 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  A search for Internet cat turns up at least 15 cats on the first page that nobody knows or cares about. If we're going to make articles about every cat that goes viral on TikTok and then gets 10 articles written about it because it's easy clickbait, we're going to be making a lot of terrible articles. AryKun (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  @AryKun But clickbait "if it bleeds it leads" stuff is totally okay, right? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you think the accident is non-notable, nominate it for deletion. In any case, we don't have articles on every minor accident that kills 10 people somewhere, just the larger ones. If this was a cat with actual notability like Grumpy Cat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it stands, it's a kitten with twisted legs that died in 1.5 months and did absolutely nothing; if we're making an article on this, we should make one on every random animal that has a viral Reddit post and a couple churnalistic articles spawned from that. AryKun (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, we're seriously going to treat a couple thousand members in a Facebook group and a similar number of Instagram and TikTok posts as a serious measure of impact? I will guarantee there are more posts than that about "fanart"^porn of at least twenty-five individual Pokémon, and we are definitely not making articles on that. AryKun (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I did nominate them for deletion... but whatever. Different standards I guess. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've found that it's more likely for a change to go through if you wait awhile to let the furor die down. Not just deletions, too- there was a nastily contentious move discussion on a paleo article over moving to the scientific name over a news-given nickname. The first move discussion was bogged down with randos supporting the nickname, but the second a few months later only attracted a handful of paleo regulars.

  Personally, I was considering bringing this article to AfD in a few months myself when the fad was over. I suspect if you waited a year and brought those accidents to AfD, there'd be much less participation, especially if there was a lack of coverage after the initial outburst however apparently sustained it was. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Much of the above speaks to why I went with merge. Lots of topics are within the "not indiscriminate" scope but fail NOTNEWS, etc., and maintaining a summary of them in topical lists is much easier than having separate articles on them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  With respect, my impression is that you didn't follow Tater Tot's coverage or the interest taken in him very closely. You seem to have decided on your own that this is just a Facebook fad and not notable instead of actually taking into account the volume of news coverage, the people making art or murals based on the cat's life, etc. I am also not sure what you mean by the cat not "doing anything" - cats whether it's Tater Tot, Pot Roast, or Grumpy Cat generally do not "do anything" unless they are animal actors appearing in movies, or play a part in some dramatic news event like Harambe the Gorilla. Notability of an Internet celebrity animal is more likely to come from sustained exposure, and it's hard to argue that Tater is not getting sustained exposure, especially when you haven't given it enough time to see if the exposure persists over time or gives rise to new initiatives, new charities, other lasting effects. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Speaking as someone who takes a general interest in celebrity cats and other celebrity animals, the global reach of Tater Tot's story, which appeared in a very large number of news outlets around the world and helped to bring attention to the plight of disabled or "special needs" foster animals, was unusual and definitely meets the notability criteria. Tater Tot is also continuing to have an impact after his death by promoting both the cause of disabled animals and general perseverance in the face of difficulties. If other "Internet celebrity cats" such as Pot Roast (cat) can have a Wiki article, then Tater Tot certainly qualifies also. At absolute minimum, the page should be kept for now and then if necessary revisited in several months or even a couple years, to see if there is some deletion criteria based on lack of lasting impact. Right now it appears the tide is going in the other direction and the impact on popular culture is actually increasing with time. TheBlinkster (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t delete this. This legacy is still on going and the help and good he has done for many resecues and other stray cats and kittens is on going. It’s the tater tot effect. Keep going out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.17.181 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of random IPs popping up at the talk page of this afd today. I'm guessing some off-wiki canvassing has gone on? Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Kinda. There's some discussion of it on a private Facebook group. Daxsymbiote (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per TheBlinkster: there is enough SIGCOV to justify the article being kept. There could be more coverage of this cat. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Merge I think Tater Tot would be best having an entry on the Cats and the Internet page. I understand that he made an impact, but I don't think it's appropriate to have an article for every kitten that goes viral. I've fostered kittens and I understand the impact that Tater Tot has had on some people and the visibility for disabled animal welfare. Considering the impact but also the short span of it, I think the merge is best. I do think some of the supporters of the page coming from Facebook need to be more respectful of Wikipedia and it's volunteers. This is not a personal attack on Tater Tot or disabled kittens or animal welfare. The people who are for deletion or merge are people who are just trying to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. If you don't have anything nice or constructive to say, please stop brigading. comment added by Daxsymbiote (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)