Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat training

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 redirect to animal training. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat training

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. WP:NOTMANUAL applies. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Locke9k (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect to animal training, or just blank and start from scratch. I would say no AFD is necessary to delete the material here and would recommend for speedily closing this, I don't really see what is gained by formal deletion. On the other hand, Cat Training is, in my opinion, a notable subject. Here's a relevant source in the CS Monitor: [1], and some other sources, less high-profile: [2], [3]. Here is a note documenting that people run seminars on cat training: [4] I would be inclined, in the long term, to want to keep a separate page on this, like Dog training. However, we could also start with a section on the animal training page and redirect there in the absence of any real material. Cazort (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Tavix (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, perhaps they could take a look at it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The style of the article is not a reason to delete. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments here, Colonel Warden. This article could clearly be fixed through normal editing. AfD discussions should focus on whether the article should exist or not--not how bad it currently is. This is a funny example of a page that has no encyclopedic content of value, and yet clearly should exist according to WP:N. Cazort (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's OBVIOUSLY not an instruction manual. Hilary T (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. If an article on an encyclopedic topic is bad enough and isn't being improved, it probably should eventually be deleted, but this one is too new for that to apply. --mwalimu59 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability of the subject is established from reliable sources like this that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Them From Space 05:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to animal training. Current state of the article says nothing. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I look through the articles history, and see that much of it was erased for copyright violations, and then the rest erased because it was a step by step guide to train your cat to do things. Not much of the article left at all. What information can be added to this article? It was apparently originally intended to be a step by step guide, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. Can you make it an article about training a cat, and all aspects of it? Dream Focus 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there are whole books devoted to this topic, it will not be difficult to write an article about the topic. And then there's the scholarly papers which seem quite scary:

Electrophysiological correlates of avoidance conditioning in the cat
Classical conditioning with auditory discrimination of the eye blink in decerebrate cats
Responding in the cat maintained under response-independent electric shock..

etc.

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great references to add, which make it a notable article. I say Keep. Dream Focus 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's certainly encyclopedic - or redirect, if we decide there is not much there, to animal training. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these 170 articles, I see plenty of scholarly work on point. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable subject.--Caspian blue 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's nothing here. "Cats can be trained to do stuff" isn't an article. It isn't even a stub. This is already covered in animal training. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no article here and it's worse than a stub. Unsourced garbage should just go, "Cats can be trained to do stuff" indeed. This is also a content fork from the "trainability section of Cats. So many keep votes here, yet none of them have seen fit to take a joke of an "article" and even try to make it less embarrassing. But i digress... Cat training can be written about in the trainability section of the Cats article, its rightful home.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (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.