Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limberbutt McCubbins

Limberbutt McCubbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

The cat is cute, but ultimately this fails

• Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including ones external to the United States (Malaysian Digest). His candidacy has been endorsed by a media organization (
  problem solving 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I should add that I have no problem with a merge/redirect solution. Agtx (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to
  WP:RECENTISM. Article can be re-created if significant RS coverage persists.--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge & redirect, good idea JayJasper. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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]

• Merge and Redirect to
  WP:BLP1E or whether the subject is truly notable in its own right. As others have said, the article can be restored if continued coverage establish it to be the latter.--2600:1003:B863:36F1:0:4A:D227:5A01 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)— 2600:1003:B863:36F1:0:4A:D227:5A01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Merge and Redirect per above, and per comments of User:Vrivasfl at Talk:Limberbutt McCubbins#Proposed Deletion. I agree with the others who say let's give it time and see if it develops into more than just a one-off news story. The coverage received so far make the cat noteworthy enough to be included in the Non-human electoral candidates articles, but only time will tell if the coverage will persist beyond colorful-news-story-of-the-week status.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's also been interviewed for a TV show in Japan, and has a Politifact page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.115.155 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — 96.28.115.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Here is the politifact page: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/14/limberbutt-mccubbins/can-a-cat-run-for-president/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinweiss (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 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.