Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of cats

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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of cats (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)

This is a

• Weak keep Not sure about this, I am going for keep as it is clear there is media coverage of cats, I am just not sure how much of a subject it is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this were
  talk) 21:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment "Media coverage of cats" is the wrong title for this article - it's actually a List of media that provides news to cat lovers, as its second sentence reveals. "Media coverage of cats" might be notable - there is an article about it in the journal Journalism, called 'Taking animal news seriously: Cat tales in The New York Times' [1], and there is a book called Cats in the News by Martyn Lewis [2]. But this article is not about media coverage of cats, so sources about that topic don't help establish whether the subject of the article is notable. I will search again for "media that provides news to cat lovers". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as has just been demonstrated, there are sources, including ap ublished book. The list of media is a useful part of the article, but I'd suggest keeping the present title. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is essentially an "in popular culture" list elevated to its own article. For this reason, I am against merging into cats. This needs an additional discussion of how media coverage of cats has made an impact on anything in order to be notable in its own right. In its current form, it is just a list and is of no added value to the Encyclopedia. I recommend deletion - an interested user can recreate at a later date based on the sources discussed above if they so desire. Bensci54 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable article. Maybe the title is not the right title. Cats are covered in the medias and it's a happening thing. Karl Twist (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above in my delete comment, your comment would apply to whether

talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment the title is inaccurate, and the content is largely bad and promotional. I think
  π, ν) 00:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Per
  WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". What we have here is more of a listicle. That's ok because others have looked at the topic in a similar way. For example, here's some current events at the British Library:- Cats in Western literature, Cats on the Internet, Cats on the page. And here's some coverage of developments of periodicals about cats in New York: Who killed Cat Fancy?. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Not the same as Cats and the Internet. Perhaps rename it List of cat media. It has reliable sources talking about it so passes notability requirements. Dream Focus 02:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a) because this page is promotional, and b) if any of the listed magazines published or publishes noteworthy articles, they can be referenced in the resp. wiki page on the cat species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Colonel and Dream. Id also say the article no more violates
  ride sharing does for mentioning specific companies like Uber & Lyft. It would be un-encyclopaedic to take our laudable anti promotional concerns to the extreme. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 1 February 2019 (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.