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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Aficionado Association[edit]

Cat Aficionado Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No material coverage in English. No suggestion / claim of significant independent coverage in reliable sources in any language. Bongomatic 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per arguement proposing deletion of article due to lack of an English language reference, two links to English language websites referencing CAA independantly were added 01-11. See: * English language website referencing CAA
and ACFA international show schedule referencing CAA
In light of this, said arguement in favor of deletion now appears mute. Article is therefore meritable and valid according to wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.103.243 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that pet blogs and websites of that nature fall under reliable sources. Bongomatic 07:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are not examples of significant coverage. Bongomatic 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet clearly significant enough to prove the organization does in fact exist. Phone numbers and Chinese office location published online are consistant and available for verification. The very nature of a foriegn organization, notably any organization of Chinese or non western origin do not necessarily allow for significant English language coverage. Yet several examples in English have been brought forth and listed, whereby CAA is in fact acknowledged. I fail to see the merit of even questioning the existence of an organization that has already been readily acknowledged by a reliable source. Namely an established organization known as the American Cat Fanciers Association. Moreso, the term 'significant coverage' is subjective, and can only be logically interpreted as thus. I've also found no mention on wikipedia pointing to this term as grounds for deletion. By example, one could defer to an organization like Felis Britannica with little or no independant or extensively significant coverage, and question why this article hasn't been considered for deletion. I therefore move that Cat Aficionado Association be kept.
Existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Significant coverage is discussed in detail. Please refer to the notability guidelines, and specifically the notability guidelines for organizations. Bongomatic 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the availability of Chinese sources: "Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship, and editing through open proxies, the most common method of circumventing such censorship, is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." (WP:CSB) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain the relevance of that to this discussion? Are you suggesting that domestic censorship is preventing reliable Chinese sources from covering the (otherwise coverage-worthy) topic of the Cat Afficionado Association, which is why such sources are not available? In fact, the item you quoted explains why it may be difficult for Chinese residents to make changes to Wikipedia, not why there wouldn't be domestic sources available. Bongomatic 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Chinese online news providers found several reliable sources with 'significant coverage'.
Most notably on the well established Sina.com[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Also see significant coverage on other major Chinese online news portals including(Bai du)[10][11]and Sohu[12][13]
Plus more coverage from several other reliable online news outlets[14][15][16]
There are also many established breeders recognizing and utilizing CAA as a registry[17][[18][19][20][21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.245.57 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional news coverage from other online news providers[22][23][24][25][26]
Sina and Baidu are (as you pointed out in respect of Baidu) portals. Showing up there is like showing up in Google (see WP:ATA). Moreover, while the subject was mentioned in those articles, it didn't seem to receive any significant coverage in them. Can you please provide a couple that you believe--on their own--demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Don't need another 20 links. Bongomatic 15:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sina.com for example does in fact provide news sourced from established outlets in China. More than just a portal or search engine, Sina.com acts as one of a few primary online filtering outlets for news in China. The articles (20) I've listed links to are as significant and independant as can be expected, in so far as describing an organization and its primary newsworthy topic (competitions, breeding, and animal rescue). Accordingly, the following 2 articles in particular provide more than negligible focused coverage of CAA. [27][28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.103.98 (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the original source? Sina (as you point out) is not a source, but a publisher. Bongomatic 11:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is AfD, not CSD. There is no indication that the sources are reliable. They are served up under a portal's banner, so without further color on the actual sources, there's no reason to think they're other than blogs or websites that would not if in English constitute RS for notability purposes. Why are criteria less stringent for Chinese web content than for English? Bongomatic 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A notable and reliable secondary source with a neutral point of view: [29] This source lists other organizations as well, so un-biased neutrality is well established. There is also a book that was published in China which discusses CAA. [30] And the link in Chinese: [31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.62.88 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 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.
More