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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat people and dog people[edit]

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

I don't believe that this is a notable subject and may fail WP:NEO Gbawden (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article stub was started three days ago; its ample sources have been moved to the Talk Page. Give the article creator a chance to flesh it out and prove notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. There are ample sources on the talk page that demonstrate the notability of this topic. Plus, @McGeddon: explained on my talk page: "Yes, you only actually need two references to meet WP:GNG". At least at AFD there is an opportunity for passersby to hit the edit button and get this article moving forward. :D (I haven't had a chance to because I'm still pooped from working on Cats and the Internet and now i Ihave a Masters of Commerce to worry about... It's *that* time of uni).--Coin945 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Beyond meeting the WP:GNG, there's also "not violating WP:NOT" that needs to be considered in creating articles. I'm not saying that is or isn't a problem here, merely that the nomination is probably more about that side of things if its quoting WP:NOTNEO. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I take a different exception to this article: if 'dog people' and 'cat people' are encyclopedic topics, then they should have their own articles. Lumping them together into one article will probably turn it into a compare-and-contrast essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest delete this article, and recreate dog people and cat people only when there is enough content to bring the article beyond a dictionary defintion – which is essentially what this article is now. Aspirex (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a dicdef is understandable considering the article is a very new stub. It has two lines. But they count - they sum up the topic very succinctly. And there are a tonne of sources in the talk page.I lumped them together because it would be easier to justify the topic's validity before splitting into different articles, and it makes sense because in terms of animal-person it is only ever cat- or dog- person, never horse-person or fish-person. It builds on the duality of cats/dogs in society. At least, thats where my thoughts on this are. But your comments are valid and should be taken into account.--Coin945 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Defines a classic meme within the pet owner world, with room for expansion. And there is too a "horse person" LOL! But not pushing for that article. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing on the article's talk page is sufficient to me to warrant an article. I don't feel like WP:NOTNEO applies, its an established term that has been used for a long time and used by a ton of reliable, third party sources. This isn't some zany word some kid made up on Youtube last week or something, the type of thing NOTNEO is usually trying to prevent. I'm not opposed to splitting it off into 2 separate articles, as Aspirex states, but I think that should be a separate discussion that occur sbased on how things are looking once its been expanded out some (hopefully soon). Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ABF99. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (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.