Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolf (campus 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 delete. There is no consensus for a redirect, but one can always be created editorially. Star Mississippi 18:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf (campus cat)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article most certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; the topic is one of probably hundreds of campus cats and the fact that he got minor coverage as a human-interest story in the local newspaper and two tabloids does not grant him GNG. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets GNG. The sources given are reliable and secondary, and there are several, therefore it passes the notability guidelines. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the sources do not meet notability guidelines. KoA (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources not meet notability guidelines? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is to show they meet notability guidelines, not the other way around. Low effort common WP:ATA arguments like sources exist are a far cry from GNG. It's simply mischaracterizing the low quality sources and tabloids here. WP:FART/WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE gives some additional guidance on that. Fluff pieces don't make the subjects notable and merely existing in that realm of sources does not let someone legitimately say "therefore it passes the notability guidelines." KoA (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define "fluff piece" please. Full articles dedicated to the subject by multiple secondary sources hardly seems to fail SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nom already mentioned human-interest story otherwise known as soft news (of an even fluffier variety in this case than some of the less criticized types of soft news there). Generally those types of stories are not given much weight for existing in news sources and disregarded as news fluff when we get to "local animal" stories. You'd generally want something outside those spheres. KoA (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something really only "notable" to locals at best. Definitely not something for encyclopedic coverage much less WP:SIGCOV in sources. They're just fluff pieces. KoA (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add on that while we've been dealing with a lot of edit warring at the page with editors trying to maintain extremely low quality sourcing without consensus, there is a bit that's been fleshed out at the article on sources.

Of the original sources in this diff, the first is just the university's page and not independent. 3 is from WP:METRO and on the WP:RSP as not reliable. That only leaves two sources, The Warwick Tab and Conventry Telegraph, which are both local regional tabloids as others have mentioned. Nothing we can use here for WP:GNG or even WP:DUE content in an article. We'd pretty much be left with a stub saying the university calls it their official cat at best. Pretty much everything that's been brought up on the talk page has also just been local sources like the student newspaper. KoA (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to University of Warwick, article is definitely not notable enough on its own, but information about the cat could be in included in the University of Warwick article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed redirect before my delete comment above, but honestly I don't see this being a useful redirect (parentheticals rarely are by nature when the core name already isn't enough). The larger issue though is that there really isn't content to merge, even before I recently cleaned up a lot of fluff in the article. There was a lot of WP:UNDUE stuff independent of any AfD discussion in the article that would become even more undue at the university article. Content at the university page, if any, would probably best be crafted independently. I wouldn't really see it going past a "neato" tidbit one-liner though that they have a campus cat. A lot of campuses have some gimmick like George the campus squirrel, etc. that have a very local following, but typically wouldn't be of encyclopedic value at the university article. KoA (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm borderline on this. A cursory dig for sources mostly turns up social media posts and pages from the university's website. There is some independent coverage by the Coventry Telegraph, but that's local to the area. I also found an article in Metro - [1], which I'm guessing is one of the stories the nominator mentioned - but the consensus is that that's not a reliable source. Moonreach (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and reliable sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable for an encyclopedia – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on why you believe that it is not notable for an encyclopedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails WP:GNG. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The subject has been covered in a UK national newspaper with a circulation of just under 1 million readers. Strobie (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The cat has an established presence and following on social media, and has been covered in national mainstream media. If this page is deleted, what would be the consequences for similar cat entries e.g Maru or Grumpy Cat? Where is the line drawn? I believe the subject is sufficiently noteworthy PurpleMouse (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpy Cat was the subject of international coverage in more than one undeniably reliable source for most of his life. As for the latter part of your argument, please see WP:AON. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don’t think I expressed myself well. I didn’t mean to argue that if this page was deleted then all cat articles should be deleted! But I can see how it can be read that way. Instead, I am interested where the line should be drawn. To me, this cat is well known enough, but I follow internet cats! I appreciate others with a lower level of interest in internet cats may not have heard of Rolf and will have a different opinion. I really hope the page stays, though. PurpleMouse (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our standard, as other comments have alluded to, is WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my God, are we serious? Couldn't this at least have waited a day (well, from where I am) so we could all properly appreciate this article in the spirit in which it was so clearly intended? As it is now there is absolutely no way this article could even facially be on subject considered notable. I am also not impressed by QuicoleJR's bludgeoning this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That's it, too severe edit wars, and possibly WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel Case. RobinCarmody (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What we have here are a student newspaper that fails WP:INDY, a site that fails WP:RSP, and local tabloids, doing fluff pieces, that are categorically not what we consider reliable sources. At most, some mention of this "official school cat" could be made at the university article, but even that's a stretch per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Metro is not a "local tabloid", it is a national newspaper that is referenced daily by the BBC: example. Strobie (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strobie, time to knock the repeated misrepresentation, especially after hitting 4RR and narrowly avoiding a block. Metro is specifically not a reliable source to the point it even has an entry at WP:METRO and you're well aware of that already. KoA (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Daniel Case and SMcCandlish. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 5 April 2023 (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.