Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limberbutt McCubbins

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to

Help resolve disputes! 09:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Limberbutt McCubbins

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

The cat is cute, but ultimately this fails

WP:1E. I realize that this is about a cat and not a person, but because the cat is doing person-like things, I think the notability standard is about the same. Agtx (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Non-human electoral candidates - Not much notability atm but seems better to merge & redirect instead of just deleting, No objections to recreation if anything else crops up notability-wise. –Davey2010Talk 21:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is more coverage now, and it is not all just a joke; there is a serious aspect in this expressed in coverage by the Huffington Post and ABC News. I personally find it only partly amusing: there are serious candidates getting drowned out, i.e. candidates who have declared themselves in the running despite having no chance to win, but having a serious point they're trying to get out (e.g. Michael Steinberg, with a legitimate point about Social Security funding, to be covered soon at Michael Steinberg (lawyer) (draft in progress)). I have added to the article. --doncram 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage has continued. The article grew significantly by this diff from the version seen by nominator and all above !voters. It now includes coverage from Scotland and from more U.S. sources as well as from already-mentioned Malaysia. It doesn't make sense to me to delete an article when there is this much coverage and when coverage is increasing and the article is growing. The article could be redirected after a future discussion, if not all persons are satisfied by some later date, but it doesn't make sense to truncate the development abruptly now. Also if this much had been developed within the suggested merger target article, it would be time already to split it out to a separate article, because the legitimate material is more than fits comfortably there. --doncram 18:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edits in the diff you point out don't reflect any additional coverage. Rather, they just reflect the addition of large block quotes from the same articles (or extremely similar articles from other sources) that were cited previously, which are probably not necessary here. I don't think that prevents us from entertaining a merge/redirect solution. Agtx (talk) 18:31, 11 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.