252:(OPPOSE) If well agree that wikipedia should be the most complete encyclopedia ever, this there should be nothing wrong with noting a well known cat. I am guessing that most people that are here and are going to be here onwards got here by searching for it. It is somewhat disappointing when we find wiki to not have a specific page. If the cat can be featured in the New England Journal of Medicine, then it should surely also be featured on Wiki.
480:. In this case, there have been many reports of cats with mysterious powers of prediction, medical and non-medical, that could form the basis of a good encyclopedia article, if somone would do the research. One particular example does not make for an encyclopedia article. That cats can detect diseases, or death, or predict earthquakes, is interesting. That one particular cat can do this is a newspaper article but not an encyclopedia article.
134:. (OPPOSE) Considering that Oscar is featured, not in any run of the mill news story, but the New England Journal of Medicine (the most prominent refereed publication in the medical community), given the numerous submissions from which the Journal could select articles for publication, that should be enough to let Oscar keep his little space on Knowledge (XXG).
341:: The New England Journal of Medicine is certainly a reliable source and its write up of most topics is anything but trivial. Considering the media coverage of Oscar I say the cat is definitely notable enough for inclusion. I seriously doubt half the Pokemon characters on Knowledge (XXG) meet notability as well as this cat does, no offense to Pokemon.
730:
for now, although this may be a case of recentism. It is well sourced but I ought to point out that the vast majority of the news outlets carrying this story are carrying what is largely a reprint of the same material. I would prefer some more substative coverage on the topic, however, and perhaps it
489:
The answer to all arguments of this form is to write a better article on the major topic, whether it be animals and human disease or child abduction. An ideal encyclopedia would contain a balance of short single topic articles, and longer thoughtful essays. In time, consensus might form to merge some
410:
is currently only 900 words. That's a problem, and it shows that in general, many editors find it easier to write a summary of some newspaper articles than to write a general article about an encyclopedic topic (that may cite individual cases as examples). There have been other stories of cats with
423:
So, the article shall be deleted because Oscar is a "victim" of publicity? So, the article shall be deleted because other articles (you may consider similar) have been deleted in the past? So just because (you predict that) Oscar may be "forgotten" in future, the article shall be deleted (before he
471:
is shorter and less detailed than articles about individual crime victims because I think
Knowledge (XXG) should be an encyclopedia and not a newspaper archive. Child abduction is a serious and complicated topic and deserves a serious and deep article, but what we get instead is barely more than a
700:
isn't a newspaper. Ergo, it more than meets our notability criteria. Having said that, as I watched this story on BBC News last night I was rather annoyed to hear it get credited as some kind of precognitive feline grim reaper, when the interviewee at the care home explicitly said it was just
561:
Oscar's the subject of multiple, independent credible sources. An article on the cat doesn't preclude writing a general article on cats with claimed abilities, or animals supposedly sensing things we cannot or whatever. Famous animals, and this is now a famous animal, are as encyclopedic as
631:: If this doesn't pass the ten-year test, I'm sure that there are 300000 articles for you guys to whine about (Sorry if I offend anyone). This article is worth keeping because it has many sources (CBC, Daily Mail, etc.), and is a subject of interest that, with time, will become encyclopedic.
157:
Then again, if we really want to settle the issue, simply print out the
Knowledge (XXG) article and see if he curls up around it and sleeps like he does with the Steere House patients. If he does, it would be a sign of its impending death and we should delete it then.
472:
stub, while individual abductions get in depth coverage, in my opinion, because most editors are lazy, or have no idea what the difference between an encyclopedia and newspaper article should be. Or to take it out of the realm of current events altogether, imagine if
189:
I think that the average person can tell the difference between humor and seriousness; I'm sorry that the above commenter cannot. And BTW Oscar's story is on
Wikinews and has been most of the day; one might want to check things out before making such suggestions.
411:
mysterious abilities. A good encyclopedist would research the topic and write a general article covering the whole topic, that would be timeless and interesting long after Oscar is forgotten. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
394:. It is an interesting subject, and an article on mysterious powers of cats (or some better title) would be a good thing to have, and to note Oscar as one example, but Oscar himself is not an encyclopedic subject. It's like having an article on
398:(an encyclopedic topic) but also having articles on only certain individual victims who happen to chosen by the news media. The first makes us an encyclopedia, the second makes us a newspaper archive. Before it was deleted,
490:
of the short articles into the longer one, or information from them might inform the details of the longer article. If the short articles are deleted, then there's no basis for this method of improvement of the longer ones.
277:(Oppose) Article is not merely the 'cute story of the day', because it is based on an article in a refereed medical journal (New England Journal of Medicine). Should eventually be merged with
117:
Doesn't anyone know the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia any more? Sure its interesting, but it will be forgotten by everyone but us in 2 weeks. We have and article on
762:
Its certainly become notworthy given the amount of attention this cat has received in a variety of news sources spanning the internet, print news, TV, and medical publications.
619:
to write an article on him, then he's notable enough for us. I know it's not a good argument but there are already plenty of animal articles with far less reliable coverage.
452:
but Oscar himself is not an encyclopedic subject. It's like having an article on Child abduction (an encyclopedic topic) but also having articles on only certain individual
110:
591:
329:
This wonder cat, mentioned by BBC and CBS is definitely notable. Of course, the article should focus on what the cat can do, rather than its history. Cleanup is needed.--
305:(Oppose) Many people will be searching for information on this cat, perhaps for years to come. Has been featured on almost every global news source on the internet.
646:
around here is not a useful argument to keep. This is at best a small section in an article about alternative methods of cancer detection (such as
433:
Where did I say he was a victim of anything? Newspaper stories do not automatically equate to encyclopedia articles. Did you actually
294:
731:
merits a revisit a little ways down the road to see if anything useful has been said about Oscar or if he's faded away into obscurity.
208:
or some other related Animal ESP article. The point I would say is, will anyone remember the kitty after his grim reaper status now?--
178:
and all that. Maybe put it up on
Wikinews. Maybe. And sorry, Quidam, AfD's are decided on consensus, not sleeping habits of felines.
17:
775:
696:
578:
142:
83:
78:
121:
but no articles on the individual dogs who have been reported to do this, and for good reason. Same reasoning applies here.
87:
145:
deems it medically noteworthy, there will likely be enough present and future public interest to merit an article on him.
643:
70:
797:
532:
Well sources article, based on an essay in a most prestigious sceintific journal. It's sad to see how the argument of "
36:
796:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
647:
278:
205:
171:
118:
281:
into a braoder article (perhaps on animal smell and human health) once the science is better understood. --
632:
533:
517:
481:
442:
412:
122:
782:
766:
754:
742:
722:
707:
682:
668:
654:
635:
623:
606:
581:
566:
551:
540:
524:
494:
484:
462:
445:
428:
415:
378:
360:
345:
333:
321:
309:
297:
285:
268:
256:
244:
228:
212:
194:
184:
162:
152:
125:
52:
737:
676:
did get several seperate mentions in the news, so sounds notable (sources independent of the subject)
439:
Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain
392:
Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain
74:
620:
491:
240:
is an excellent shortcut to know. I should have mentioned that in the murder victim afds yesterday.
399:
750:
well referenced, and not to be confused with a certain
Knowledge (XXG) administrator, I trust. --
265:
209:
691:
390:
I don't say he is not newsworthy, I say this is a newspaper article, not an encyclopedia entry.
237:
221:
719:
601:
563:
403:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
353:
779:
751:
547:
its not sad at all, i continue to find the 10 year test to be a very compelling argument --
317:, the Oscar story i featured in one of the most prominent medical journals in the world. --
175:
468:
407:
395:
342:
253:
665:
241:
651:
548:
537:
521:
459:
425:
357:
318:
264:(Oppose) Stories on several noted News stations and featured in a medical magazine. (
225:
191:
180:
159:
574:- featured in nurmous newspapers across the world, reported on televishion, the web
763:
704:
678:
598:
438:
391:
49:
575:
370:
I'd thought I'd shared this with you. This cat has even had a half-page report on
104:
732:
375:
330:
306:
282:
149:
66:
58:
374:, Hong Kong's daily newspaper. (It's on the international section, page A22).--
577:, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Thats notable enough, isn't it?
424:
is forgotten)? Seriously, don't you think it's time to drop the request? --
371:
477:
174:
as a related/similar case, but no need to have an article about it.
473:
790:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
293:
Why would we merge an article on a cat to an article on dogs? --
441:." There is no encyclopedic scope to the story of one cat.
536:" yet again is used by people who are short of arguents. --
467:
I think you missed my point. I object to the fact that
100:
96:
92:
170:
the cute kitty. One could make a passing mention in
694:argument is rather undermined by the fact that the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
800:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
476:was a longer and more detailed article than
590:: This debate has been included in the
520:, no way this passes the 10 year test --
690:. And keep that cat away from me. The
456:who happen to chosen by the news media
224:could be considered to apply as well.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
147:special note: cats are not psychic.
592:list of Medicine-related deletions
24:
664:due to many substantial sources.
450:You repeat "it's like having"...
776:Twiggy the Water-Skiing Squirrel
697:New England Journal of Medicine
220:Newsworthy is not noteworthy.
143:New England Journal of Medicine
295:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
615:. If he's notable enough for
388:General reply to the keepers.
718:per all of the uses above.
817:
701:responding to human cues.
783:18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
767:17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
755:17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
743:15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
723:15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
708:15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
683:14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
669:14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
655:14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
636:13:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
624:13:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
607:13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
582:12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
567:12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
552:14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
541:12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
525:12:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
495:15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
485:15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
463:14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
446:13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
429:12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
416:11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
402:was over 1000 words, and
379:10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
361:14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
346:09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
334:08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
322:08:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
310:06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
298:05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
286:05:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
269:04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
257:04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
245:04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
229:04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
213:03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
195:03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
185:03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
163:03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
153:06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
126:03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
53:18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
793:Please do not modify it.
516:- keeping this would be
356:around here, so what? --
32:Please do not modify it.
648:Canine cancer detection
279:Canine cancer detection
206:Canine cancer detection
172:Canine cancer detection
119:Canine cancer detection
437:my comments, such as "
352:yup, there's a lot of
236:-- This is recentism.
579:Think outside the box
644:other rubbish exists
406:is 1200 words, but
327:Keep (but cleanup)
774:, solely because
609:
595:
404:Michael J. Devlin
808:
795:
778:has an article.
604:
596:
586:
562:anything else.
108:
90:
34:
816:
815:
811:
810:
809:
807:
806:
805:
804:
798:deletion review
791:
621:Espresso Addict
602:
492:Espresso Addict
469:Child abduction
408:Child abduction
396:Child abduction
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
814:
812:
803:
802:
786:
785:
769:
757:
745:
725:
712:
711:
685:
671:
658:
657:
642:the fact that
639:
638:
633:142.179.121.11
626:
610:
584:
569:
555:
554:
544:
543:
527:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
382:
381:
364:
363:
349:
348:
336:
324:
312:
300:
288:
272:
259:
247:
231:
215:
199:
198:
197:
165:
155:
135:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
813:
801:
799:
794:
788:
787:
784:
781:
777:
773:
770:
768:
765:
761:
758:
756:
753:
749:
746:
744:
741:
740:
736:
735:
729:
726:
724:
721:
717:
714:
713:
710:
709:
706:
699:
698:
693:
689:
686:
684:
681:
680:
675:
672:
670:
667:
663:
660:
659:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
637:
634:
630:
627:
625:
622:
618:
614:
611:
608:
605:
600:
593:
589:
585:
583:
580:
576:
573:
570:
568:
565:
560:
557:
556:
553:
550:
546:
545:
542:
539:
535:
531:
528:
526:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
496:
493:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
470:
466:
465:
464:
461:
457:
455:
449:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
427:
422:
419:
418:
417:
414:
409:
405:
401:
400:Shawn Horbeck
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
377:
373:
369:
366:
365:
362:
359:
355:
351:
350:
347:
344:
340:
337:
335:
332:
328:
325:
323:
320:
316:
313:
311:
308:
304:
301:
299:
296:
292:
289:
287:
284:
280:
276:
273:
270:
267:
266:Ghostexorcist
263:
260:
258:
255:
251:
248:
246:
243:
239:
235:
232:
230:
227:
223:
219:
216:
214:
211:
210:293.xx.xxx.xx
207:
203:
200:
196:
193:
188:
187:
186:
183:
182:
177:
173:
169:
166:
164:
161:
156:
154:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
792:
789:
771:
759:
747:
738:
733:
727:
720:James Luftan
715:
702:
695:
687:
677:
673:
661:
628:
616:
612:
587:
571:
564:Nick mallory
558:
529:
513:
453:
451:
434:
420:
387:
367:
338:
326:
314:
302:
290:
274:
261:
249:
233:
217:
201:
179:
167:
146:
138:
131:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
780:Doc Strange
752:Oscarthecat
716:Strong Keep
629:Strong Keep
482:Thatcher131
443:Thatcher131
413:Thatcher131
339:Strong Keep
176:WP:NOT#NEWS
139:strong keep
123:Thatcher131
67:Oscar (cat)
59:Oscar (cat)
343:IvoShandor
254:Abhishekbh
666:Propaniac
534:recentism
518:recentism
242:Saikokira
141:. If the
692:WP:BLP1E
652:Xorkl000
549:Xorkl000
538:Bondkaka
522:Xorkl000
460:Bondkaka
426:Bondkaka
372:Ming Pao
358:Xorkl000
319:Camptown
238:WP:BLP1E
226:Resolute
222:WP:BLP1E
192:Quidam65
181:Hersfold
160:Quidam65
137:Agreed,
111:View log
764:Alyeska
705:DeLarge
599:the wub
454:victims
421:Comment
368:Comment
84:protect
79:history
50:Raul654
514:delete
478:Galaxy
376:Kylohk
331:Kylohk
307:Xioyux
283:Dr.enh
234:Delete
218:Delete
168:Delete
150:yalbik
88:delete
650:). --
474:IC 10
202:Merge
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
772:Keep
760:Keep
748:Keep
728:Keep
688:Keep
679:Will
674:Keep
662:Keep
617:NEJM
613:Keep
603:"?!"
588:Note
572:Keep
559:Keep
530:Keep
458:. --
435:read
354:crap
315:Keep
303:Keep
291:Keep
275:Keep
262:Keep
250:KEEP
132:KEEP
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
739:ΚΙΙ΄
734:ΙΚΠΊ
597:--
594:.
204:to
109:β (
703:--
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
271:)
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.