Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maru (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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maru (cat)

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

Page built around a cat that has videos of itself on Youtube. Does not appear to be notable, unless sheer volume of videos uploaded on Youtube is now a measure of notability Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maru is well-known and has been featured in books, TV, commercials, etc. Notice there are articles on Maru in about 10 wikis. Please follow WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Maru is not well-known, and the only reliable source cited on the entire page that deals exclusively with Maru is a single USA Today article about the release of the Maru book, dating to 2011. The remainder of the references appear to be blog posts and primary sources (ie, written by Maru's owner) and 2 articles that talk about the popularity of cats on YouTube and mention Maru only in passing. In any case, I see no category under which Maru would be notable - clearly not WP:PEOPLE, as Maru is not a person, so why is Maru notable? Rockypedia (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to LOOK for references before you nominate an article for AfD! And there is nothing that says the subject of the article has to be a person. There are many articles about notable animals, entire categories. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and move Maru's info to List_of_cats#Cats_famous_in_their_own_right - I just discovered this list, which is a far more appropriate place for putting Maru's info than an entire page. My apologies for not suggesting this right off the bat, as I was not aware of that list. Rockypedia (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; your nomination is your !vote. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maru clears notability easily. As suggested by his inclusion on List_of_cats#Cats_famous_in_their_own_right, Maru is famous. That's his fame is mostly in impermanent online media shouldn't be used against him. Fitnr 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that his fame is in impermanent online media, it's that there is only 1 source that's considered a reliable secondary source. As you know, blogs are not considered reliable sources, and the rest of the sources are primary, also not good enough to establish notability.Rockypedia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article includes references to the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and USA Today. Fitnr 22:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Next time, please remember WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST before nominating. If I happen to suddenly remove all the references on United States, then fooled a oversighter into oversighting all of its revisions, does that strip it of its notability? Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're arguing, as there were no references removed from the page. Rockypedia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that articles are notable if they have sources not cited in the article - it is good practice to do one quick search. Even a thrity-second search will find enough sources for a notable subject to be notable, and you will easily find non-notable ones. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This guy has removed my edit without a good explanation and then posted Maru here to be deleted. Wtf is wrong with this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.126.233 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are now multiple citations that demonstrate Maru's fame beyond YouTube views. He is used as the lead example in a Wired article regarding the cultural fascination with cats on the internet. --Hotpinkcats (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was asked to come here and provide a neutral opinion (I'm not voting here to avoid any potential feelings of canvassing). To be honest, I am not sure this is entirely necessary as there seems to be a lot less heated debate here than I anticipated and I don't see any really evidence of edit-warring on the article page that could create any issues. Whilst I am not seeing vast swathes of content online where Maru is the sole subject, there are examples of that in the article now along with a number of other sources which discuss Lolcats in more general terms, but in which Maru is central to the article, namely: USA Today, and NY Times. I can also see specific coverage of Maru within the lolcats fad in The Guardian, Wired and more from Wired. Finally, I note that there has been little attempt to discuss Maru's presence in Japanese media. I'm not sure that anyone can be dismissive of notability without such an analysis. It seems, and I'm not sure this is a good thing to say, but in the field of lolcats, Maru does seem to be preeminent. Certainly there seems sufficient coverage of this particular cat to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even Adweek called him "the Internet's Top Cat": [1]. Michitaro (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I suggest a speedy close. Just because a topic is not important to the eye of a beholder doesn't mean it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There's a massive volume and considerable depth of coverage; individual cats or dogs being cultural icons is nothing new, and while having a lot of YouTube views doesn't automatically make a person or animal notable, it can, and in this case does. —innotata 06:54, 7 July 2015 (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.