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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maru (cat)[edit]

Maru (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page built around a cat that has videos of itself on Youtube. Does not appear to be notable, unless sheer volume of videos uploaded on Youtube is now a measure of notability Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Maru is not well-known, and the only reliable source cited on the entire page that deals exclusively with Maru is a single USA Today article about the release of the Maru book, dating to 2011. The remainder of the references appear to be blog posts and primary sources (ie, written by Maru's owner) and 2 articles that talk about the popularity of cats on YouTube and mention Maru only in passing. In any case, I see no category under which Maru would be notable - clearly not WP:PEOPLE, as Maru is not a person, so why is Maru notable? Rockypedia (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to LOOK for references before you nominate an article for AfD! And there is nothing that says the subject of the article has to be a person. There are many articles about notable animals, entire categories. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote; your nomination is your !vote. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that his fame is in impermanent online media, it's that there is only 1 source that's considered a reliable secondary source. As you know, blogs are not considered reliable sources, and the rest of the sources are primary, also not good enough to establish notability.Rockypedia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article includes references to the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and USA Today. Fitnr 22:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're arguing, as there were no references removed from the page. Rockypedia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that articles are notable if they have sources not cited in the article - it is good practice to do one quick search. Even a thrity-second search will find enough sources for a notable subject to be notable, and you will easily find non-notable ones. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are now multiple citations that demonstrate Maru's fame beyond YouTube views. He is used as the lead example in a Wired article regarding the cultural fascination with cats on the internet. --Hotpinkcats (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2015 (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.
More