Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (cat)

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. It's the classic argument between a short burst of media attention potentially satisfying the GNG and the lack of sustained coverage, potentially falling afoul of NOTNEWS. I'm sure this debate will rage on for many more AfDs to come before it is ever settled, because it certainly isn't settled here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (cat)

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

per WP:NOTNEWS. This is sad and all, but there really isn't any chance of this having any sort of enduring notability, impact, or coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surpassing WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it got covered. And in 2 weeks it won't anymore. No enduring notability at all. About the same situation as the coverage of that woman claiming to have a baby with Justin Bieber, or that video of little girls covering Nicki Minaj.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't have any lasting notability. At most this should be a 1-2 sentence addition to the John F. Kennedy International Airport, but I'm not sure it really merits that. It's a sad story but in about a month nobody will really remember this. Jack is not as memorable an animal as say, Marley or Dewey. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep/merge It's not clear whether this cat will be remembered but it doesn't matter because notability does not expire and the point of Wikipedia is to inform readers of things that they don't know, not things that they do. There are lots of similar cats on the List of cats and the worst case seems to be that we would just merge this one onto that list per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if comparing this article to the unreferenced mush that makes up List of cats is really a strong argument. Do we really want to say something should be kept because it's similar to elements of an article that includes the deliciously unreferenced section "Famous pets of other famous people"?--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the spirit of WP:BLP1E: he's not a person or alive, but this article needs to be deleted for the same WP:NOTNEWS reasons that we delete cases of BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive coverage in reliable sources easilly passing WP:GNG. BLP1E does not apply; as even delete voters seem to admit, the cat is neither a person nor alive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in the spirit of BLP1E it's even less significant. A person involved in an event with this little importance or impact would absolutely not get an article; the idea that a cat should be treated to an even less strict standard seems absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to John F. Kennedy International Airport. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The sources presented easily pass GNG. This is more than 1 Event. 1. Disappearance 2. Missing 3. Discovery 4. Passing. Jack doesn't need coverage in 2 weeks, Notability has been established and WP:NTEMP. CallawayRox (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's...quite a stretch. But at this point it looks like this article has been incorrectly rescue tagged for long enough to canvass out the usual flock of keep !voters, so I doubt it will end in anything but a no consensus. A renomination in a couple months when it will be easier to see the lack of enduring notability may be best, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't is awesome that we have a category of "individual cats" on wikipedia? RIP, Jack.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Originally I thought this was ridiculous, but the coverage of this cat/incident is amazingly comprehensive. I see no benefit from deleting it really. In 50 years, yes, people will remember this and want to look it up. Just like people today will look up events from 50 years ago. If you don't believe me, read up on things like Francine Gottfried.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I find it ridiculous to call this multiple separate events, I do see the benefit in waiting longer to see the extent of continued coverage. Depending on the results here, perhaps a renomination in a couple months may be best,--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also think that this topic has enduring notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary". Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - At this point, the use of the rescue tag has been contested. Please do not re-add it without discussing your rationale first, and ideally after reading up on when it should be used (right here).--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested, my ass. Its a legitimate use. I am re-adding it, and I rarely add the tag to anything. Why? Because the article is clearly subject to additional improvement through the adding of sourcing. There are many sources and editorials that discuss this little 'ol cat. Alerting editors that the article can be improved through rescue processes is legitimate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the article needs references? Because I don't think anyone is arguing that; no amount of sources one way or another is going counters the arguments expressed here, since it was not about lack of sourcing. The rescue tag's purpose is for when the reasons deletion proposed can probably be countered not simply because an article could use more references. The other uses of the rescue template, as listed on the ARS page, clearly don't apply here either. If you think the article could be improved by the addition of more sourcing, feel free to add the appropriate tag.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism to remove the tag. I doubt you did it for any reason other than to prevent more people from coming over here, who might disagree with you. Dream Focus 16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the rescue tag does nowadays is canvass ARS members to vote keep. Rarely does the article itself actually get improved. Goodvac (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back up your spurious assertions with evidence before defaming ARS.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to find evidence. Most articles marked for rescue are not improved, despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ("The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles."). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolvement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanSat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi-vegetarianism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Day New York (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Smalltalk, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation for some recent examples. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkstars is a particularly telling example—a member of ARS marks an article for rescue merely because the article was relisted with no other voters.
Note I said "rarely"; I do admit, though, that ARS used to do good work as seen here, but I usually don't see that anymore. Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not scientific, that's just some random AfDs to support your biased opinion. I've never used the hall of fame for my many rescues, I just edit and improve wikipedia. If only 10% of tagged articles are rescued, that's a significant number of articles saved from unnecessary deletion at the hands of the book burners.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's just some random AfDs to support your biased opinion—as was your example. Suffice it to say that ARS improves a few tagged articles and votes keep at the rest. Goodvac (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles tagged for Rescue end as kept. See the current list of results? Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list The arguments are what keep an article, not the numbers, AFD is not a vote. Dream Focus 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ending in "keep" doesn't mean that ARS has fulfilled its self-professed goal of improving articles; it just means either that notability was established (at which ARS sometimes succeeds) or that ARS members voted as a bloc.
AFD is not a vote. Interesting that you say this when you don't subscribe to it yourself. "At the AFD, most stated the article should be kept, not deleted/redirected. Follow consensus" and "Most people have already stated the article should be kept." Your comments here are based on the number of votes, not on the strength of the votes.
"We're trying to save the world" Hey, thanks for the laugh! :) Goodvac (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Yaksar, please discontinue removing the rescue tag from the article. Please read the information on the Article Rescue Squadron page regarding removal of rescue tags – "It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete." Also please read the notability guideline section WP:NTEMP, Notability is not temporary, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." As you're the one that nominated this article for deletion, it appears that you're trying to game the system to obtain the result for the article you desire, to have it deleted. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my lack of arguing at this point is not giving in, I just don't care enough to fight a flock of misinformed people. You are wrong, plain and simple, about the use of the rescue tag. Even if this article definitely should be kept, it does not mean the use of the rescue tag is justifiable. The tag's purpose is to bring editors who can help improve the deficiencies given in the deletion argument. You've stated that you put the rescue tag on to alert ARS members that an article you feel is notable is up for deletion. That is misuse. If an article meets your opinion of the notability guidelines, but consensus is trending towards deleting it, well, that just sucks for you, unfortunately. You can't just call in a group of people to come !vote on it. That's canvassing. If you wanted to address a specific issue that the deletion nomination was covering, that's a different scenario. But that was not the case here. Tschuss.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than just a cat, a campaign. Documented in reliable sources. JORGENEV 07:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage already found. In books published about famous cats, this one will surely be featured with the rest one day. Books about the airport's history might include an entry about this also. Dream Focus 16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although reasonable coverage exists that indicate subject passes WP:GNG, the determining weight of this AfD would be more prudently judged by WP:NNEWS as the cat's notability credentials (so far at least) strictly stem from its singular event. Under those criteria, the subject has not satisfied and in all likelihood will never satisfy WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, and enduring notability is a specific inclusion criteria of WP:NOT#NEWS. This article should be deleted because of the failure of those policies, but re-created in case of a future event that causes a lasting impact. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE are satisfied. One documented effect was the creation of an online campaign involving many thousands of people. And the coverage spanned several months, so demonstrating some persistence. Warden (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFECT specifically refers to a notable lasting effect and surely a subsequent online campaign with involvement by an arbitrary number of people does not qualify. WP:PERSISTENCE stresses coverage outside of the subject's immediate newsworthy period to determine lasting significance. All the current sources are merely reporting the event as it happened, during the subject's news cycle. They do not qualify. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 12:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aequo (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I contributed comments in favor of keeping above, but realize I did not !vote.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jorgenev et al., as a campaign documented in many reliable sources over more than two weeks' time, awfully long for a news cycle. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG PERSISTENCE all per above - and 25,000 cat nutters is likely of interest to future internet psychologists. (as is afd in general) --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2011 (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.