Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pets of Vladimir Putin

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. per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pets of Vladimir Putin[edit]

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

Prod contested, article is unnotable — JJ Be rs 17:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we already have articles on individual and groups of similar animals:

Canadian Parliamentary Cats
Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, United Kingdom
Hermitage cats in Saint Petersburg, Russia
Tibs the Great a dead cat that lived in a post office
Cats of the President of Taiwan
United States Presidential Pets
Pets of the British Royal Family (Category with multiple pages)

Pets in the United Kingdom (Category with multiple pages)

Putin is famous for his manly poses with horses, tigers and other animals. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does a dead cat live anywhere, outside of Kitty Heaven? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he's got 9 lives to use up Legacypac (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Legacypac. Can be expanded along the lines of United States presidential pets. The bottom line: this is well sourced and something notable based on wide coverage in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto. Not only do we have United States presidential pets, a number of them even have their own articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Legacypac. Lepricavark (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page is pulling avg 207 views a day. That suggests notability and that people are searching for it. [1] Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I came to it through ANI. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Views from last week aren't from ANi. follow link Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other links here.[2] It is all irrelevant anyway as this does not prove notability. AIRcorn (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently sourced per WP:GNG, notwithstanding WP:OSE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I honestly feel like the majority people who have spoken here didn't actually read the article, and if they did they did absolutely nothing to improve it. It was full of links to YouTube videos and the bulk of the information was about wild animals and charities. Reflexively voting keep an article with copyrighted material and vast amounts of off topic information without improving the article hurts the encyclopedia. AniMate 23:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I analyize the validity of the topic, and general state of the article, without regard to the possibility of editing improvements. Yup it needs cleanup and thanks. Legacypac (talk)<

Keep this should probably be closed now OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't meet WP:N. The main article currently has a very small section on his pets Vladimir_Putin#Pets which is enough. Also, the person who created this article in March [3] has been indefinitely blocked [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - properly sourced and well written. WP:OSE is a valid reason as well in this case. Jupitus Smart 14:09, 6 June 2017 (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.