Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creme Puff

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. Move to Creme Puff (cat). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creme Puff[edit]

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

Biography of dead cat which was, at one time, the oldest cat in the world. Half the article is currently about a different cat. This will likely never be more than a stub, unless Creme Puff is re-animated and does something notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but move to Creme Puff (cat)). Anyone who has ever owned a cat or known someone who did would consider it remarkable that a cat lived 38 years, and the fact that it was written about by Guinness and profiled on CNN essentially meets the requirement for significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. It appears that the reason for deletion isn't that the cat is non-notable, but rather that "this will likely never be more than a stub". Sorry, that's not a reason to delete. Mandsford 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - Information about "oldest cat ever recorded" to cat. It is asinine having a biography of a cat written under the cat's name. Wikipedia is not a memorial, etc. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Mandsford suggests. It's the oldest cat ever, after all - notable by anyone's standard - and if someone (probably not me) had the inclination, this article could be fleshed out with a little research. As for Carrite's assertion that it is "asinine" to have a biography of a cat under a cat's name, well, I think Hodge, Scarlett, and Saliega, among dozens of others, would surely disagree. --Seduisant (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short articles are quite acceptable in any encyclopedia and are preferable to the wall-of-text style. The topic is notable and no policy-based reason to delete has been provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the good deletionist clan will get their axes sharpened... Carrite (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I agree, move to Creme Puff (cat). Searching for Creme Puffs should bring you automatically to a cat. Loiathal (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move Notability is established by reliable sources, not by the fact it maybe has a Guiness book of records mention. That aside, moving it to cat seems more appropriate. Bossanueva (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as reliable sources have established notability, there is no policy on not having articles listed by an animal's name (see e.g. Seabiscuit). Move to Creme Puff (cat) and redirect "Creme puff" to "Cream puff" or directly to "Profiterole". Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (disclaimer) After writing the preceding, I added a couple refs. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt oldest cat should have article, verifiable reliable sources exist^walk victor falk^talk 10:52, 17 July 2010 (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.