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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddles (cat)[edit]

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

It seems to me like the majority of coverage on the cat comes after being hit by a car and killed, thus WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – trivia that hardly merits a mention in Jacinda Ardern's article, let alone an article of its own. Akld guy (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Can't see how this article is any different to Larry (cat) or Palmerston (cat), people love famous cats, including Paddles. Should also be noted prior to death, Paddles has been a social media sensation and was in the news a fair bit (E.G. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41757958) GWA88 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this cat (amongst others) was noted before its untimely demise. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other famous "politicats" like Humphrey. Lots of politicians have pets, and they attract media interest, and often a celebrity following. Paddles seems to have been no different in that respect, so the article should stay. This is Paul (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had already gained considerable noteworthiness prior to its death - articles about Paddles made the media worldwide, from Canada to India to the United States, largely as a result of having a twitter account with over 10,000 followers. Grutness...wha? 10:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you delete this cat, you have to carry out the same actions for those mentioned per GWA88, as there's no discernible difference in notability or quantity of internet coverage. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary,they have been noted for years.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant worldwide media coverage, as crazy as it seems. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many other political pets with articles on Wikipedia. --Zerbey (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is entirely WP:NOTNEWS, no matter what these people — apparently a majority — say. Some people mention other cats, but those cats were in the news a lot more than this cat, who is only in it because he got crushed by a car. Also, this cat is just a cat — just someone's pet (before you say "but what about Putin's pet dog, remember: in the news a lot more). Unlike Akld guy, I do think it should be in Jacinda Ardern's article, but it does not deserve its own article. Calicodragon (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even reported by the BBC before it died. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cat only got broad notice for a very short period and is not comparable to those who have been written about for years.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the pet of a prime minister does not automatically demonstrate notability, as demonstrated by the sub-stub length of the article which would lose absolutely nothing by being given only a passing mention in the article Jacinda Ardern. For people arguing that political pets are generally notable: will we have an article for each and every one of the Kennedy's pets? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Justice for Paddles! He was very influential with a Twitter page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.211.59 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to correct location. Should this be struck? Not doing it myself because I'm not sure, but this is clearly not a policy-based vote, more than a hint of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and Twitter pages have nothing to do with notability. If it were so, Carrie Fisher's dog would have his own article, and he shoudn't. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense comment (and only edit) left by anon with no intention to contribute to the topic. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add anything of worth. "Justice for Paddles!" provides no constructive reason why it should be kept. Rusted AutoParts 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case...-A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Depth of coverage was global. Definitely notable. Ajf773 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Prior to death was barely noted for having an online social media presence. It's not a unique trait as many noted figures make social medias for their pets. Coverage of death doesn't automatically make the individual notable. And in this case Paddles is definitely not notable. Rusted AutoParts 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Poor arguments on both sides. Scrapes past notability I reckon - received quite a bit of coverage before death (or else would be WP:BIO1E in spirit) and more now with the death. Galobtter (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: could you elaborate on what's poor about the delete arguments? It's my personal opinion, but "just scraping" shoudln't be the measure of how an article is kept from deletion. I'm seeing some pretty strong points about deletion, and a google search for me only showed two instances of coverage outside of the death. It's only being reported because Twitter is making a big hooplah over it, and sure the coverage is notable, but the cat? Not so much. Rusted AutoParts 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: could you elaborate on what's poor about the keep arguments? It's my personal opinion, but "just scraping" is enough of an indication that an article should be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, it is scraping through. I'm seeing points for keeping which are totally consistent with the notability standards, and a google search shows numerous instances of coverage outside of the death, of which I have already linked four. Paddles was already big news in New Zealand and had independent articles (significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, the major standard of notability in Wikipedia). Its coverage has increased because of Twitter, but was already considerably present beforehand. As such, this constitutes not one burst of news activity but two, one at the time of the election and one at the time of death. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice condescension. Rusted AutoParts 02:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you :/ Though if you had accurately stated the facts in your original reply, it wouldn't have been necessary. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are the cat was only talked about on a global scale for a week before it died. It’s not an indication it’s had a lengthy notability and in death it’s notability will not grow further. And your condescension was not needed period. Adds jackshit. Rusted AutoParts 01:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you considered it condescension - it was not intended as such. The questions I asked were genuine, and the way you had worded your comment was the perfect format for asking them.; It was also the perfect way of indication the errors in your comment. If something os "just scraping" it means it is just passing the guidelines, so why do you consider that something that just passes the guidelines doesn't pass the guidelines? It may be that you could only find a couple of Google references, but my earlier comments had easily shows that Google presented more references than you suggest. And it was clearly not the case that the fuss about the cat was entirely due to Twitter, as you intimated. The easiest, quickest, and most effective way to point out those errors was simply to mirror your questions. If you regard the use of a common rhetorical device as condescension, I apologise, but the intention was to counter your somewhat spurious arguments and to simultaneously ask relevant questions, not to condescend. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider people copying the way I write something to counter my arguments to be condescending, so intentional or not I found it quite rude. Rusted AutoParts 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you found it so - but you would have a lot of difficulty in debating, because it's a common technique. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is calling your opponent an idiot, Nazi or virgin. Throwing out "random" memes in place of words is common enough. You could discredit his argument by attacking his spelling and it'd be par for the course, but still just of those annoying things you see online. If you're serious about persuasive writing, structure your own points parallel to each other, not someone else's. Nuanced imitation is sometimes flattering, but immediate mimicry is straight-up talking bird shit. If you've ever tried conversing with a real parrot, you'll understand why someone might write off a similar introduction, even if everything after it is something like human. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're going to allow 100+ articles about Swedish standardbreds ("trotters"), who nobody but Swedish gamblers and those in the Swedish standardbred business ever heard of, we can keep an article about an obscure cat that nobody has ever heard of, either.Tom Barrister 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAX. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Kind of special. Allegedly. Definitely cute. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say remove the content to Ardern's article, but it doesn't seem notable enough, which tells me all I need to know about Paddle's notability. Sorry, Paddles. RIP. Bennycat (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Who are you kidding? UW1941 (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cat was featured in the mainstream media extensively, both overseas and in New Zealand, prior to his untimely demise. Helenabella (Talk) 00:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page for a cat that no one outside of New Zealand ever heard of until it was dead? Get rid of it. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prior to her death, Paddles had international media attention including Vanity Fair, BBC, India, Singapore and Malaysia. WWGB (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even still some articles published a week before death I don’t think makes a strong case for having a lengthy notoriety. Rusted AutoParts 18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, the distinction between national fame and international fame is usually irrelevant to determining notability. This is English Language Wikipedia, not Whatever Country You Live In Wikipedia. De Guerre (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Gillie believes this article is a keep, due to the number of independent sources cited, he would also be happy with a merge to Jacinda Ardern, i concur.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage before its death had established general notability. Schwede 66 09:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite enough coverage before the death. Passes WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because Paddles had 10,000 followers on Twitter does not mean she deserves a wiki article, unless she set up the account with no human intervention. I'm sure when Paddles was born, her first thought was to have a Twitter page. I love my cats but they, nor Paddles, should have a Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcardnut (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Bizcardnut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge Based on length of the article. If the article does get expanded (but with what?? a photo?), I would lean towards a weak keep ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can always be expanded. The presence of a deletion tag usually stops further development. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, animal barely notable, only gained somewhat significnt attention on social media before death, (only 10,000 followers, there are animals with way more, example Grumpy Cat, with 2.4 million followers on instagram) and the sources are only about three things, the cat interrupting Trump, the twitter account, and the death of the cat. However, move the info to Jacinda Ardern groig (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jacinda_Ardern#Personal_life. No depth of coverage of the cat will ever exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the cat and its unusual paws were covered by the BBC (for example) before she died. No in-depth coverage of any politician's cat will ever exist. But it does. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, not notable. Which article will be the next? Justin Trudeau's Chewbacca Socks? --Norden1990 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the cat and its unusual paws were covered by the BBC (for example) before she died. Notability beyond a pair of socks which I don't believe have any reliable sources discussing them in news outlets around the world prior to the death of the Star Wars' socks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Trudeau's sock choice has definitely got some notable and reliable coverage by GQ Magazine, The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Toronto Star, Maclean's and The Guardian... to name a few. But I think we can all agree that his sock choice doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly wouldn't capitalize "socks". We might in Justin Trudeau's Chewbacca, Socks. But some people think it's wrong to call all wookies Chewbaccas, arguing the one they know had a unique personality, history and/or ability. I say he's a mere furball, like the rest, and would consider redirecting his crazy huge article to Mammal if not for all the strangely significant coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This item by Radio New Zealand's Mediawatch programme (in my opinion) sums up the silliness/stupidity of this non-debate. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018621022/dead-kiwi-cat-goes-global) David French (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, another reliable independent source...Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Galobtter (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of not liking the article; it's more a case of this being unsuitable for Wikipedia. If you were to ask most New Zealanders, they would tell you that they had never even heard of this cat until a fake twitter account was started for it in October of this year. Next you'll be telling me we should have an article for Tom Selleck's moustache because it has at least three twitter accounts. David French (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, because barely notable is still notable. De Guerre (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this time (12 hours before scheduled close) there are 13 "keep" votes, 3 for "weak keep", 12 for "delete" and 4 for "merge". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I takes truly exceptional evidence or a pet to be notable just for being a pet, and I do not see it present here. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Barack Obama'sand Vladimir Putin's dogs, Bo and Konni respectively, have their own articles. So, there is a precedent to create articles dedicated to a leader's pets. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paddles, like the pets of many other politicians, meets the general notability guideline, namely that she had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I also note that this coverage occurred on multiple occasions before her death. Claims by those above that she is only known for her death are simply false. Disclosure: I created the Paddles article. Chrisclear (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Jacinda Ardern, the notable owner, from whom all supposed notability derives. Sandstein 12:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we close this? groig (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2017 (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.