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. Rewritten article address primary deletion concerns. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular cat names[edit]

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)[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. ~Pip2andahalf 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]
    • An Encyclopedia does not "increase human knowledge", it is a reference work containing current knowledge. An overview of popular pet names could well be considered part of our current knowledge. Also, I like to keep articles like this because, although they indeed are below standards, they can be improved and expanded (like just happened to this one). This is an open wiki, after all (which also means Wikipedia is not a "serious publication" by any standard). --Reinoutr (talk) 21:42, 11 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]
    • Yes I can. If you read WP:OR, it clearly states at the top that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." The article fit this criteria perfectly when the AfD was issued but per recent revisions it no longer fails OR. Weak keep. Themfromspace (talk) 04:54, 12 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]

• Keep has reference, and thre should be others in Cat books and periodicals. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong Keep somewhat to my amazement. People seem to care about this sort of thing, as the sources show, and that's notability--at least over a period of time. I shoulnt reaqlly be all that surprised, considering that there are 148 books on cat names in worldCat [2] That's going by actual subject as cataloged, not merely title. So much for preconceptions. DGG (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.