Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat-like aliens

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 - Philippe | Talk 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-like aliens

Original research- a collection of fictional characters that the author groups into the category of 'cat-like aliens'. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was tagged with notability in July 06 shortly after creation. Was prodded in December that year with the comment "Original research/no context" and again in January last year with the comment "Redundant to List of fictional cats. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:47, 23 January 2007". First prod was removed with the deceptive comment of "edited", second was removed with comment "removed prod see talk page". J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and listcruft. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - It is possible, I don't know, that this section was spun off from the List of fictional cats because that article is already at 70K without these entries. If that is the case, then there would be sufficient grounds for keeping it. Also, the claims to OR are, at least in several of the cases I know, spurious. The Kzinti, I can speak to from memory. They are specifically described in the stories as being "cat-like" or some equivalent phrase, and thus there is no original research involved. I believe the same may be true in most of the other cases, and probably is true in many of them. To call it OR without evidence is I believe a failure to AGF. While I could reasonably see the length of several of the entries shortened, or perhaps separated into pieces on individual members of the race, listings like this are much preferable to categories, as they can provide greater content. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claims of OR seem absurd but, in any case, could be addressed with citations to works showing that particular entries are indeed about cat-like aliens. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Grouping these together like this is original research until someone has written about the phenomenon of 'cat-like aliens' in fiction. As far as I am aware, nobody has. Is it acceptable to create a page about anything a group of fictional characters have in common? Fictional characters whose favourite colour is red? I'm sure I could find a few where it explicitly states in the literature that that is their favourite colour... J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, if the sources themselves use that terminology, then it is not a violation of OR as per the WP:OR page, at least as I can read it. If you think otherwise, pleae indicate to me exactly where on that page you see it. The first paragraph of "Sources" leads me to think that simply repeating what the primary sources say, if they call them by such a phrase, is clearly permitted. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep probably a violation of WP:SYNTH per above but does seem like a notable phenomenon; cf. Reptilian_humanoid, Reptilian humanoids in fiction. Current article is basically just a list though. JJL (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarity. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough of them for their own list--the concept is notable, andthe details verifiable.DGG (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup. All entries should have a source indicating where the aliens in question were described as "cat-like," either in the original work of fiction itself or in a reliable secondary source. (This could include director commentaries, reviews, etc.) Including entries on the list simply because of visual similarity would be original research. *** Crotalus *** 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to refer to cat-like aliens. Maybe it should be renamed "List of cat-like aliens"? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We've got List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type which is really a collection of lists like this one, also we've got List of fictional cats for any very special characters. Cat-like aliens makes some grandiose claims to notability without anything to support these claims: for example, "They have become a common trope of fictional aliens, being seen in many fictional universes.". At least from my own personal experience, this claim is simply untrue - even if not, it is most definitely WP:OR. Jobjörn (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-potentially useful for a filmography researchCholga^talK! 05:01, 28 February 2008 (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.