Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garfi (cat)

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 delete. Sandstein 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garfi (cat)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a notable animal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "considered to be" is not even a claim of any real significance. I think it might qualify for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple reliable sources are listed at [1] and the following pages. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Fails WP:GNG as there is only one source. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE is worth remembering. This is not deep journalism, but it is coverage of an internet meme from several reliable sources independent from one another from different countries. I added several references, but didn't bother to add this Turkish one. Sometimes pile-ons lead to errors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Typically I would express a delete opinion for a majority of meme’s. However, in this case, looking at coverage with concern to Garfi I see US Magazine, Daily Mail, BuzzFeed News and British Journal of Photography, as shown here [2]] covering the specific subject. In which case I believe clears the notability bar. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Typical meme-recentism.We are an encyclopedia.∯WBG^converse 06:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a passing meme. Nothing seems to have been published related to the cat since 2014. I know that notability isn't fleeting - once notable always notable - but in this case, in my opinion, the notability was never proven. The sources have very little meat, consisting of mostly just showing the photos, and the level AND quantity of the sources don't quite pass muster for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There are a couple of later sources but they fail to either be reliable or fail Sig Cov. I'm also inclined a similar way towards DGG's case - as it is, it may well fail A7. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m sorry but we have coverage or more properly said, mentions, of Garfi as recently as June 2018 as shown here,[3]. I think that is pretty recent. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mention of Garfield - the fat and orange cat - not Garfi, our Turkish friend. A site coding error split the word and affected your search. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:08, 19 July 2018 (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.