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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are pets notable enough to merit own articles or should they be merged into parent article?Neuropean 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pardon my ignorance, but if this cat influenced Islam as the article claims, then I think its notable. ccwaters 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more notable than computer game characters or kiddie sports teams. Robertsteadman 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please measure an article on its own merits and against policy, rather than making apples-and-oranges comparisons by genre. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - I have no problem with pets having their own entry but this one doesn't need it. It can readilly be added to the 'Family Life' section in the main article where it can be read in context and is easier to find. The only time a pet of a notable person need its own article is where there is so much material that it would unbalance the main article - not the case here. TerriersFan 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly one of the more notable of the Historical cats. If this article goes, then the entire category probably should go - there'll only be two or three cats left on it if we restrict it to cats who are famous for reasons unconnected with their owners. Tevildo 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a redirect is set up then this cat can still remain in the category as it were :-) Redirects can remain in their original categories. TerriersFan 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and would that be such a tragedy? All of these cats could be placed in one article if necessary.Neuropean 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per Tevildo. --The Editrix 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Cat with historical significance. NawlinWiki 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as stated above, historical significance, article of interest, etc. I disagree with TerriersFan that it can be added to the family life section, as that section comprises of direct human relations.M2k41 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK; or a new section that can easilly be added without unbalancing the article. TerriersFan 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Unsourced information. Doesn't pass WP:V. Also, can be merged into other articles. --Ragib 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it certainly is one of the more notable of the Historical cats. --- fdewaele, 22 june 2006, 10:30
How, may I ask? The article doesn't even provide a citation that the cat even existed! --Ragib 00:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Muezza is one of the more famous cats. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual cats are notable per se :-P But seriously, this article clearly asserts notability, it just needs some sources. Eluchil404 13:34, 27 June 2006 (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.