Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Mandu

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. Shimeru (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Mandu

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

I redirected the article to Howling Laud Hope as the section existing on the new page is almost the same as the content on this the original page (word for word). The redirect has been reverted and thus contested so opening up a discussion seems to be the right thing to do rather than enter into an edit war. Wintonian (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are more than their text content - they also include categorization into projects and such categories as Category:Animals in politics. Is the nominator suggesting that Howling Laud Hope should be categorized as an animal? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Article is referenced by the BBC and two broadsheet newspapers. Why should it be deleted? If the nominator objects to duplication elsewhere, then the appropriate response is to fix that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andy Dingley is spot on; it's obviously notable by Wikipedia standards, and could be expanded well beyond what's there. Rebecca (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editing can fix issues within and between articles; deletion is for when there shouldn't be an article at all, and in the rather strange (some might say raving loony, even) circumstances of this party, we're talking about the former titular head of the party (even if it is a cat). The article is sufficiently referenced; the LOL(cat?) factor together with the prominence of the party prompted several independent reliable sources to report significantly on the issue. Therefore I believe it meets notability standards. Orderinchaos 04:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with redirect Per Wintonian. - PlainSight (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Parliamentary candidate, notable enough for his own article, even if it's only a stub so far. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a candidate, not quite sure how a cat can be put up for election, but then this is the Loony party and I guess I've lost this debate anyway.--Wintonian (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stupid but notable. Szzuk (talk) 07:24, 16 April 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.