Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara (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 keep. This is pretty evenly split between "Keep" and "Merge", but there's an obvious consensus not to delete the content. Suggest listing this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to test if there's a consensus for that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (cat)[edit]

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

This one is a doozy. If WP:BLP1E would apply, this is it. The cat Tara is only provided in context of this one event, in tons of news coverage. Albeit substantial news coverage in reliable sources and a viral Youtube video, I believe that this is a clearcut case of WP:NOTNEWS in this instance. Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cats. It clearly is an example of WP:NOTNEWS, but it can be cut down and made into an entry on the list of cats article, and be recreated on a later date if the cat receives lasting and enduring coverage(which may happen as many viral videos tend to live on and spread). If there was a List of viral videos article then it could also be added there.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLC1E. No, Redirect and merge with List of cats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and Redirect) to List of cats per Ai and Cullen.--Seduisant (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of cats should have been where this started with so makes sense to put it there. Amortias (T)(C) 14:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do not merge or redirect) per nominator's "single event" rationale. I disfavor redirection because the topic lacks significant notability, and disfavor merging because the Tara is already listed in List of cats with an appropriate amount of coverage. I just added a bit more to the sentence about Tara on List of cats, and included a reference, which I think should be there regardless of what happens with this article; there would have been more reason to merge info when the above "merge" votes were recommended. There are two side stories I've seen related to Tara, one is about the cat being honored by throwing out the first pitch in a charity promotion by the town's minor league baseball team (ESPN), and the other about a brief online store presence cashing in on the cat's fame (Metro, TMZ), but they're in such a close timeframe to the initial story that they don't demonstrate the type of sustained coverage expected for notable topics. Agyle (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this more, and maintain the same vote, but wanted to respond to User:GRuban pointing out below that WP:BLP1E is for people; it's a good point, as BLP1E is specifically geared toward protecting the privacy of low-profile living people, presumably for legal and ethical reasons most people would not extend to animals, so I wouldn't consider it here. I think WP:ONEEVENT, which is similar but geared more toward topic importance, is a better guideline to consider; it still refers to people, but I think Tara is analagous enough that much of what it says still makes sense. One of the issues it raises is should there be an article about the individual (in this case Tara), about the event, or articles about both. In this case, a third possibility is an article about the YouTube video. In addition to the general notability guidelines, I considered the guidelines for people, events (WP:EVENT) and films (WP:FILM), and any angle about this just seems to fall short of established guidelines. While some aspects of WP:GNG are met, those guidelines also caution that "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Again, Tara is a cat rather than person, but the subject seems reasonably analogous). In the future, the cat, the video, or the event could meet notability requirements for any number of reasons, but right now all lack appropriate historical significance. Agyle (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story of how Tara saved Jeremy has become a story of international note, and keeping a separate article devoted to the story would be most helpful for someone seeking information on this event in the future. Wikipedia has the "list of cats" topic; but how many people know that Wikipedia has a "list of cats" subject for people to reference. In the future, when someone learns of this story and wants the details, they are going to be searching Wikipedia for "Tara" and not "list of cats" Krell Altair IV (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability on Wikipedia, It's widely being reported in Japan. Now, She is a famous cat. FNN JNN ANN [1] [2] [3] etc. also Ceremonial first pitch, Reporters came from Deutschland and Japan. ([4] [5] [6])--Benzoyl (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E is meant to protect people from negative effects of publicity. Not cats; cats aren't going to be applying for jobs or being checked for notoriety when crossing a border. This is a fine story, which received international coverage, and more attention than most of the contents of Category:Individual cats. --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about my perhaps too-hasty Delete recommendation (above). I'm reminded of Scarlett (cat), a similar article, which deals with a "one-event" cat. Scarlett rescued her kittens, one by one, from a burning building, and suffered grave injury in the process. Since Scarlett's event occurred in 1996, there was no Internet storm of recognition, but she became famous anyway. So I'm coming around to thinking Keep. (Also check out Room 8 for a similar cat scenario, this one a "one event, year after year" occurrence.) --Seduisant (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two examples provide a good contrast for topics that I do think are notable. Scarlett (cat) was famous for one event, but was the subject of three books, published up to ten years after the event occurred. Room 8 was also a subject of a book, regular news coverage spanning 15 years about the cat's life rather than an event, and inspired the Room 8 Memorial Foundation that was active at least from 1972 to 2013 (more than 40 years). If there are books or documentaries made about Tara, or even ongoing news coverage about the cat in coming years, it would establish notability, but a viral video from a week ago hasn't yet demonstrated the "sustained coverage" described in WP:15MOF or "lasting significance" in WP:LASTING. Agyle (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let it be. --91.149.114.86 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is Notable, after all. Zince34' 06:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable! Could also be justified on "Keep for now" grounds, waiting for book deals, more coverage, more awards, more public appearances, etc., which are conceivable as happened for Scarlett (cat). We don't need to delete it and then plan to restart it; simply keep it. --do ncr am 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of cats - The cat had became notable for pretty much one event so obviously BLP1E applies. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cats, while BLP1E does not apply because its not a person, there simply isn't enough content to justify a standalone article. Event that makes this cat notable can be easily fit into List of cats.--Staberinde (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As doncram notes above, these 'one newsworthy event' cats tend to become even more notable and popular as time goes by. I say keep, and if interest declines, renominate for deletion later; rather than the reverse... Fylbecatulous talk 13:16, 6 June 2014 (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.