Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Chunk

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 --Leivick (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Chunk[edit]

This article describes a flash-in-the-pan news story that got picked up by a number of different papers and TV shows in a slow news week. The article fails WP:NOT#NEWS and has no potential for expansion that I can see.
Note: This page was previously speedy-deleted. The speedy-deletion was overturned in a Deletion Review on 1 Aug on procedural grounds. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~transwiki to wikinews~~- Unless there's somehow going to be more to this story, there's no need to keep it here. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WikiNews is unfortunately not GFDL-compliant so even though it's a sister project, we technically can't use the transwiki process. Someone would have to rewrite the text at the point of transfer. That's probably a good suggestion, though. I was surprised to note that they don't yet have the article. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I did not know that. In that case, my vote is changed to a delete. I doubt there would ever be enough notability for this creature to warrant a page. That said, no prejudice against re-creation if further events warrant it.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems more like a news story than anything of any long term encyclopedic relevance, although of course does meet WP:V (I got an edit conflict here and had to write my argument again).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and, by extension, BLP1E. Yes, I know BLP is for people, not animals, but it's precisely the same kind of concept going on here. Shereth 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we were to delete per BLP1E, we would need to eliminate about half of those articles still linked to the list of Kentucky Derby top three finishers.Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, it's not the same kind of concept. A major factor in the blp1e guideline is that we are to be very sensitive to defamation and libel, problems that are most most prelevant by blp1e's. These problems obviously don't apply to non-humans.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for choosing not to read between the lines, but there is absolutely nothing in BLP1E that invokes the necessity for sensitivity and caution. Yes, the overall BLP guidelines are very aware of this fact, but the "one event" subsection is a question of notability alone. Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the section in context with its parent section "Presumption in favor of privacy" and in context of its neighboring sections "Privacy of personal information" and "Basic human dignity" the general policy idea should be obvious. But as you said, if you don't want to read between the lines, you don't have to. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of notability. Yes, there are references that say this cat exists, but so what? That does not confer notability. There are any number of people (and I'll put aside the fact that this is a cat) who have verifiable references to themselves on the Internet. They exist. They've been covered in human-interest stories. They volunteered at the fish fry last week. They opened a new branch of their medical practice. They had their 15 minutes of fame on the local newscast for surviving a 20-foot fall into a dumpster. Yes, the AP ran a story on them and it was picked up around the country in "reliable sources." This does not confer notability to them; nor does it do so for this cat. Any references to "world record" are totally useless in this context, since all they do is mention some OTHER cat that was BIGGER...and now there is no official category for this anyway. Frank | talk 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This prooves that not all fat-cats deserve encyclopedia entries... Gorgonzola (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Inclusion is not harmful to the encyclopedia. AfD hero (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: A review of User:AfD hero's contributions to the encyclopedia (and, indeed, the pointy nature of the user name) suggest a WP:SPA focused solely on inclusion of articles up for deletion, and opinions at RfA based on perception of an editor as an inclusionist or deletionist. No "delete" opinion was found among all of this editor's contributions to date (yes, I checked every page). Frank | talk 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD hero has a track record of some well-reasoned votes at AfD, even if you disagree with them. I fully support your efforts to exclude his vote here. There should be a substantial minimum amount of editing to articles and a consistent pattern of reasoned votes in both directions to be allowed to participate further at AfD. While this would eliminate AfD hero, it would also eliminate a vast number of the far more numerous kneejerk delete voters. Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to participate in the project by contributing to deletion and other administrative discussions, at which I (try to) make well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. AfD hero (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the newspaper articles, it says that "He has made television appearances as on Live with Regis and Kelly, Today, Good Morning America, Fox News, and MSNBC.". Seems notable. Also as the only other heavier cat reported died 20 years ago, surely this is currently the worlds biggest cat - surely the world's biggest living human would be notable - it may be WP:BIAS to eliminate article. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Nfitz, Chuck could be the largest living cat. While we cannot state that as per WP:No original research, I recommend that we keep this article. Kushal (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that an article remain because it contains information that suggests something that is unverified and unverifiable? Frank | talk 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant was I supported keeping the article despite it could suggest something that was unverified and unverifiable. However, as I have mentioned in the IRC conversations (which, unfortunately, I cannot upload because of a ban on public logging) I strongly support a unanimous decision, if at all possible. I would support merging Prince Chuck with Subprime mortgage crisis if there is a broader support for it than for keeping this article. Kushal (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Fits the Wikipedia mandate of functionaing as an enyclopedia and an almanac. Add to that the guideline that says notability is not temporary and this is clearly an article that should be kept to provide comprehensive coverage of all those things we have, by policy, deferred to the judgement of the popular press. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I adore cats a lot, the notability of the cat seems not to last after some period of time pass. Wikipedia is not a news.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just any found cat. The media attention has been significant and the article contains a credible claim of notability. Given the reliable and verifiable sources provided, the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This cat greatly exceeds the General notability guidelines with worldwide, reliable and third-party media reports (ie. not just in the US, but New Zealand and Australia as well). The fallacy that seems to be being repeated here is that this cat is only notable for the news coverage; this cat is notable because it is the second largest known cat, the heaviest known cat alive, the extensive media coverage and because of its "TV stardom". Notability is not temporary and if this cat is notable enough for inclusion in multiple national newspaper and television news reports, for being a large cat, there is no reason why it is not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. We may not be news, but when news reports reveal a notable subject, we should revel in the reliable sources that offers, not dismiss the subject by citing acronyms. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JimMiller and AmeIiorate.--DrWho42 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not decided by !vote as you know.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is it absolutely necessary to restate something that has already been stated quite eloquently? Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is someone else's eloquent statement, but not DrWho42's. :) --Caspian blue (talk)
Keep The cat is Famous now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trele6 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be useful if only fame were relevant. Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. Frank | talk 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, the standard is notability, which is best demonstrated through inclusion in reliable and verifiable sources, a standard that this cat (and his article) clearly meets. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable giant cat. NEWS does not apply. It might apply to the second article if there was an article on the event and on the cat, but there's only one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. And to Caspian blue, I feel it unnecessary to retype or copy/paste the arguments made by another participant that I think were sound and logical and based on policy/ guideline/ prior consensus. It is perfectly acceptable to just say "Per X". Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Strictly speaking, this article passes our notability guidelines: 'Prince Chunk' has been the subject of coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (although in many cases, that coverage has been pretty brief, as there's really very little to say about him). I am concerned that this article may not meet the spirit of the guideline, in particular when considering WP:NOT#NEWS; but it's probably too early to judge that. The best approach would be to keep this article now, and reconsider it for deletion in a year or so's time, when notability can be more accurately established. Terraxos (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the coverage hasn't been pages of information, it hasn't exactly been stub-like either. This and this for example are decent sized articles. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "world record" issue is a red herring. We know he isn't the heaviest ever, but we also know he's received substantial coverage in mainstream media. (I felt like unburdening myself of this comment, but I also agree with Jerry that "per X" is an adequate reason for keeping or deleting an article.) JamesMLane t c 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, the cat is notable (whether we want to admit it openly or not). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 13 August 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.