Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddles (cat) (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddles (cat)

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

No need for this WP:NOTNEWS article, has not been edited in a month, will become irrelevant soon, and is stub. groig (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nothing has changed. Just because an article hasn't been edited, is not relevant to you and is a stub, none are reasons for deletion. Suggest speedy close. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability doesn't expire with time. The cat received media attention, arguably more than other 'first pets', e.g. Larry (cat), Bo (dog). --Hazhk (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverages seems sufficient for GNG. Artw (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage before its death had established general notability. Schwede 66 16:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prior to her death, Paddles had international media attention including Vanity Fair, BBC, India, Singapore and Malaysia. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered by WP:RS. Lack of edits over a set period of time is irrelevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for various reasons. (1) The fact the article has not been edited in a month is irrelevant. (2) The fact the article is a stub is irrelevant. (3) I'm not sure what the nominator means by "will become irrelevant soon". If this means that dead people and animals are irrelevant, then presumably this means we should also delete the many thousands of other Wikipedia articles about dead people and dead animals. (4) Paddles, like the pets of many other politicians, meets the general notability guideline, namely that she had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I also note that this coverage occurred on multiple occasions before her death. (5) Claims by editors that she is only known for her death are simply false. Disclosure: I created the Paddles article. Chrisclear (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not contained in this article, BEFORE shows that coverage was spread over a period of time and not limited to the month of its death. Therefore, it seems reasonable that this passes GNG and should be kept in the same way we have Socks, etc. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2018 (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.