Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 Keep Cats have names (Some are really stupid). But some are more popular than others. There are sources to prove that. But for the life of me, I don't know why Fluffy is more popular than Puss Puss. Keep based on previous AfD keep and the Keeps in this Afd. DGG and JohnWBarber especially make the case that this list is not OR, is notable and is sourced. Deletes have focused on maintainability and usefulness (silliness) which are not reasons for deletion. Thanks to JohnWBarber for making improvements during this Afd. The existance of this list will never harm the encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular cat names

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per

WP:NN . Random top 10 Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)][reply
]

  • Just fyi: The
    WP:5P specifically states that we include "elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". Also, I've clarified my !vote above. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
and actually read NOT STATS: "Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics..." The abbreviation should be removed ,as it gives a false impression, and contradicts one of the basic policies DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, so remove it...--Savonneux (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna add my main objection isn't any of those things, it is as I said above: "doesn't constitute a suitably different concept than 'names' of individual animate creatures [and popularity thereof]". Like, "list of most popular x of y,"; "list of most popular names from the bible", "list of most popular names of zoo animals", etc. --Savonneux (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quiddity asked me to reconsider, but I remain of the same opinion. Using sources from one country merely requires the "Globalize" template, to add others. Using less than fully valid sources merely means to look for better ones. POV is an excessively strong term for the problem--I would apply it to a case like this only if the matter were actually controversial in some substantial way. . DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia isn't an almanac, and one day in the future
    WP:NOT will point that out again (it was removed after this campaign; the strongest supporters should be familiar to anyone who regularly visits AfD). The argument that it should be kept because it is sourced is bogus; verifiability is not notability. There is absolutely no established real-world impact for the subject, so it's just an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thumper, Is that a delete, a keep, or a comment?--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. The closing admin should be competent enough to assess my argument for what it is without having to look for a little bit of bold text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Cunningham: Wikipedia isn't an almanac
WP:PILLARS: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"Elements of". This means that we incorporate tables of statistics where it is appropriate. It most certainly does not imply that any and all tabular data is appropriate here, and more than "incorporates elements of... specialized encyclopedias" implies that we host everything that a specialized encyclopedia might host. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This means that we incorporate tables of statistics where it is appropriate. Going back to at least early July 2009 (link to that version [1]),
Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 as an example of an acceptable Wikipedia article. This article about cat names, as it stands, has a smaller proportion of tabular data in it than that one does, and in absolute terms, the cat-names article has more "explanatory text" than the other one. Your interpretation of WP:PILLARS, therefore, seems to be more restrictive than actual WP policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Favourite shoe heel heights of women aged 25 - 40 in southern England, -- are there sources for that? There are sources for this article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of sources, it's a question of suitability for an encyclopedic entry. Or has Wikipedia really become a just another blog-type repository where anyone can write anything about anything? See Cunninham below: Not everything which can be sourced is notable.--Kudpung (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objections addressed in detail, below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the geographic bias can be fixed by renaming the article to
    encyclopaedia. The fact that it was created by an editor with no other editing history may reflect that particular editors lack of realisation as to what Wikipedia is about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. A related deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a small list, it sources only a couple webpages. It's not like there's a cat census recording names. Also what about countries that don't use English names? Definitely not a topic that can be covered by Wikipedia at this point in time. - Limpbizkit1848 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable list, and it can be better sourced, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything which can be sourced is notable. It is a common fallacy that arguments concerning notability can be hand-waved away so long as the subject is a list and not an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Savonneux.
  • Keep Human relations with this menace need monitoring, and Wikipedia is just the place to do so. This is an inherently encyclopedic enterprise which this article advances. On a more Wikipedic-centric note, we are, in fact,
    almanacky. National and local names of the parasite, felinus malapropos, may provide insight into this dominant species that has acquired mastery over us -- or at least insight into our submission to the dominant species. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Here! [2] There are plenty of sources for the names we give our masters. Whole volumes have been written on the subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That people give their cats names is not in dispute (sheesh). That "volumes have been written on the subject" needs better sourcing than a Google results page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A Google Books results page would appear to be perfect sourcing for the statement that "volumes have been written on the subject". I didn't say there is a dispute that people give their cats names (sheesh). Although the fact that they do -- as opposed to giving individual names to tapeworms and other parasites -- may indicate that the subject of the article (the popularity of certain names) is worth a Wikipedia article page. That we have sourcing for this strengthens the argument. Clearly there's a serious phenomenon hereabouts, as we bring members of this eerie species into our own homes and give milk and cat litter to barely domesticated creatures with claws and fangs -- and name them. Once you leave aside the idea that this is a familiar circumstance that the human species has been practicing, probably, for millennia, the sheer outrageousness of this incongruous extravagance hits any normally curious person like a brick. We need investigation of this -- not catalepsy. Clearly, many people prefer cat names that call to mind the savage or mysterious origins of the little beasts: "Tiger" and "Smokey"; others prefer to think of the things as harmless little fluff-balls, sometimes -- shockingly -- with human names: "Angel", "Chloe", "Bella", and the ever-cute "Tigger"; the name "Max" clearly expresses the dominant nature of the animal. Imagine what insights readers could glean from an expanded article! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There really should be a
    WP:LAME we could call on in cases like this. I see there is, but it's about something completely different. Oh well. PhGustaf (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I've radically expanded the article, adding information from Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany as well as some explanations for changes in popular names over time. The lead section is much expanded as well. The article now illustrates the points that popular cat names change over time, that some of this is affected by popular fictional characters and that different countries fancy different names, even countries with the same language. These are all encyclopedic topics and can be fleshed out further over time. I think some of the recurring sources, such as the one in the U.S. section, would eventually make for an interesting table. These changes in the article significantly affect the comments and !votes above, making nearly all of them outdated and no longer useful for determining consensus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Were the comments you're talking about predicated on the number of random Web sources that the article contained, which they aren't, then you'd have a point. Expanding the article from one poorly-sourced table to five poorly-sourced tables does not address the concerns raised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Using blogs and other non RS is still no argument for what I still firmly regard as an essentially non notable, unencyclopedic article.--Kudpung (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs as non-RS? What nonsense. Why not review
    WP:RS#Blogs? The sources are reliable. The "Freakonomics" blog is on the New York Times website. No one has any reason to lie about what the more popular cat names of their customers are, and especially those companies, such as Veterinary Pet Insurance, that have been compiling the lists over the course of years have no reason to lie and every reason to try to be accurate about lists of names (there's not a lot of judgment involved in counting them anyway) -- and sources like VPI are used by other reliable sources, such as Information Please Almanac. About.com, another source, is an online publication with editorial oversight. Kudpung's and Cunningham's arguments are empty. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My deletion vote is about the entire suitablility of the article for an encyclopedia. See also Wet paint. I could soon boost my own creation count if I were to spend my time thinking up nonsense articles en masseand make two-line stubs or brief lists out of them. All I need to do i expect people to keep them in GF.--Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to assign bad-faith reasons for disagreeing with you, like the urge to "boost my own creation count". I didn't create the page. And I don't give a damn about numbers of articles I've created or added to or expanded -- I don't have a "brag list" on my user page and never did, although there are counters for that sort of thing you could find online and a review of the articles I've started under this and my past user names would be quite a long list.redacting after explanation that the editor was referring to someone else--JohnWBarber (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Odd that a subject so unsuitable "for an encyclopedia" is part of the content of two encyclopedias among the books listed below. These potential sources are brought up in Google Books search results pages. I've quoted passages from them (unfortunately, they're not all available for preview; when I say which item on the results pages referred to, I'm skipping the "sponsored results"):[reply]
    1. The Gallup Report 1989 (fourth item on this page [3]): "(Based on cat owners) Other popular cat names are Casper, Sylvester, Whiskers, Fraidy and Scaredy."
    2. The Gallup Poll Monthly (1990; ninth item on this [4] page) "Other popular cat names are Casper, Sylvester, ..."
    3. Planet Cat: A CAT-alog (first item on this [5] page): "The 60 Most Common Cat Names Veterinarians from Veterinary Pet Insurance Company (VPI), the nation's oldest and largest health insurance ... Below are the most popular names for cats in 2005, culled from over 300000 VPI policyholders. ..."
    4. It's a Cat's World...You Just Live in It: Everything You Ever ... (tenth item on this [6] page): "Of the 450000 cats that are insured by VPI, the top ten most popular cat names (combining the sexes) are: i. Max 2. ..."
    5. The Guinness Book of Names (eighth item on this [7] page): "Popular cat names A survey of British cat names, commissioned by Spillers Top Cat and carried out by the British Market Research Bureau, revealed the following most popular names: Some of the other names revealed by the survey were as ..."
    6. The Encyclopedia of the Cat (fourth result on this [8] page): "An American survey in 1 994 found that the most popular cats' names in the United States were Smokey for males ..."
    7. Cat Biz: A Compendium of Amazing Facts and Anecdotes from the Cat ... (tenth item on this [9] page): "Top ten Surveys of the most popular cat names come up with varying results, perhaps because they can assess only small samples of a huge population. However, some names are common to all three of these recent 'Top Ten' lists are shown ..."
    8. Encyclopedia of Cats (second result on this [10] page): "COMMON NAMES THEN THERE ARE the traditional cat's names. Many of these seem, like children's names, to move in and out of fashion, but Mickey,Tiger ... An American survey in 1994 found that the most popular cats' ..."
    9. Harrowsmith Country Life (first result on this [11] page): "What are the most popular pet names? Based on more than 30000 orders received by Tags & Etc., ... The most popular cat names are Kitty, Smokey, Tigger, Tiger, Max, Patches, Missy, Shadow, Samantha and, tied for tenth place, Baby, ..."
    -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that people compile these lists is not evidence that this is a notable subject. Human beings find the composition of lists to be immensely fun, and you'll be able to find plenty of lists covering any subject if you look for long enough on the Web. The issue is whether or not the subject of the popularity of cat names is covered in sufficient detail by reliable secondary sources. You can pull as many examples of these lists off the Web as you want without being able to satisfy that requirement. Furthermore, that there's such a degree of disparity in the results given by each source suggests that none of them are authoritative, so the whole exercise is pointless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sufficient detail of coverage by reliable sources is demonstrated by the footnotes now in the article and the list of sources above. There are no primary sources for the topic itself, since the primary source would be the individual pet owners themselves. The companies that gather the information (Gallup, VPI, etc.) are secondary sources that are independent (as described at Wikipedia:Independent sources) and are seen as reliable by various third-party sources (but even if you consider them primary sources and the other sources as secondary, for AfD purposes it just doesn't matter because we still have enough secondary-source coverage). Coverage in specialized encyclopedias (see Nos. 6 and 8 above) is evidence that the topic is encyclopedic. Disparity in the results isn't a deletion rationale (and it's accounted for by disparities in time and place, which is clear from the article). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, possibly merge into
    Pet naming. I'd prefer a keep result since topic is notable and interesting, but sources are pretty weak now for a full article. --Cyclopiatalk 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Pet naming is at AfD as well, and the arguments given there are even better for what amounts to a sub-topic of that article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As it is right now, a merge would result in over-emphasizing cats, creating a
    WP:UNDUE problem. There seems to be enough sourcing that "Pet naming" would eventually be forked into separate pages anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Savonneux.
    talk 18:49, 17 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_popular_cat_names_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138016200"