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 Delete. Random collection of trivia, the (very) small amount of information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article. Quite a lot of the references are blatant original research, too. Black Kite 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire Cat in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cheshire Cat in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of unassociated topics, Wikipedia is not for original research and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a collection of trivia tied together by the most tenuous of connections, the simple inclusion of the words "Chesire cat" or some variation ("chessy cat," "cheshire smile," in some instances just "Chesire" or "chessy") along with things that in the unsourced opinion of whatever editor happened to spot them reminded the editor in some way of the Cheshire Cat. This was apparently originally split off from the main article but better here than there is not a valid answer to trivia in the main article. This was AFDed about ten months ago and closed no consensus, largely it seems on the poetics of one editor who suggested that the article be treated with "TLC" to "extract what does have merit." Sadly, no editor has taken up that suggestion and it appears that the only items of merit, its Disney adaptation, is already in the main article. I am sympathetic to editors who feel they must constantly battle fellow editors who want to include every trivial mention of everything and I fight those battles too. But garbage dump articles like this are not the way to win those battles. Otto4711 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is thorouhly indiscriminate, as it seeks to collect every instance of any reference, however oblique, to "Cheshire Cat." To select a few examples more-or-less at random, what is the encyclopedic relationship between Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell, included because in one sentence of a three-season television series he uses the words "Cheshire Cat," MapleStory, which is included because of some non-player character named Fancy, and My Neighbor Totoro, which includes a character called Catbus who can disappear and reappear? For that matter, how is the inclusion of My Neighbor Totoro on the basis of Catbus, which the including editor listed on the basis of his supposed "striking resemblance" to the Cheshire Cat, not original research? It falls under the first definition of "directory," as it is a list of loosely associated topics, connected by nothing but a single mention or implication or alleged "striking resemblance" of something in it to the Cheshire Cat. Some of this garbage will probably end up in the main article, which means that editors need to be vigilant about removing it when it appears instead of foisting their problem off on someone else. As already noted, it will end up back in the main article is not a valid argument. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked out your three examples. Bagwell and Catbus stand up and I have cited accordingly. The Maple Story entry is less clear. I have the impression that there's something to it but the entry is obscure and I have found no good sources. So I just took that entry out - easy. So it goes - we check out the entries and improve them or remove them as appropriate. And as I look through the sources, I notice a huge amount of material out there which might support more articles. This cat is clearly highly influential and so we should give it good coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look. I am not saying that it can't be sourced that T-Bag said "Cheshire Cat" one time in three seasons of Prison Break. What I am saying is that the fact that he did does not mean that there is an encyclopedic relationship between the fact that he said "Cheshire Cat" and a Japanese animated cat that's the size of a bus and disappears and reappears. This article is not an encyclopedic examination of the cultural effect of the Cheshire Cat. It is a list of every random thing in which the words "Cheshire Cat" or some variant are spoken or used ever. You can waste your time sourcing these bits of useless junk if you want, but even if you sourced every single one of them it's still at the end of the day just going to be an indiscriminate collection of trivia. "This one time this guy said 'Cheshire Cat' in a movie and this other time this band sang 'Cheshire smile' in a song" is not the basis for an encyclopedic article. Look at Champagne in popular culture as an example of an actual decent "...in popular culture" article. See how there are actual sources that talk about the impact of champagne in popular culture, and of popular culture on champagne? See how it's not a list of every single time someone sang "champagne" in a song or drank a champagne toast on a TV show? See how there are no such sources regarding the Cheshire Cat? Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. In no case, I have cited the original works which features the Cheshire Cat. All citations reference secondary sources which discuss in some fashion the relationship of the Cat to the work in question. They are thus quite proper sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of "Cheshire Cat" in its entirety from your T-Bag source: "T-Bag is probably the best - which is to say the worst - thing in Prison Break, so I was disconcerted to notice last night that he couldn't pronounce "Cheshire cat". Filtered through T-Bag, it came out as "Cashire cat". A verbally challenged villain is quite endearing." The entire coverage of the CC on LSD tabs from your source: "I heard that there was a type of LSD stamped with the Cheshire cat." The entirety of the coverage from your source for Buscat: unknown, because Google books allows only a snippet view which includes nothing on Buscat or the CC. The Start Trek mention? "Sourced" by a link which does not allow the viewing of the relevant page. None of these sources indicate that any of the items are in any way tied to each other beyond someone happening to have said "Cheshire Cat" or something similar. Not a word indicating that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is an encyclopedic topic or that these examples are anything other than an index of passing mentions. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

  • "What Wikipedia is" is a collection of essays on your user page, which do not address the policy issues and have no force. The Five Pillars specifically state that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that there is to be no original research, so they actually support deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a collection of essays that interpret the policies and therefore have force. This article, which is unoriginal research, is a discriminate one with clear parameters as indicated by its title and organization and does contain references, which is why the policies actually support keeping it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry, essays do not have any force, which is why every essay is tagged at the top with "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And you really ought to know by now, after how many years of your participating in these discussions, that "sourced" does not automatically equal encyclopedic. We delete articles every day that are impeccably sourced because they violate policies and guidelines. The title does not set a clear parameter, as is obvious by the scattershot inclusion of every possible mention of the term, and the fact that the article is divided into sections means absolutely nothing in regards to its indiscriminateness. I could have List of people named John who live in the United States and organize them alphabetically by last name. That sets a clearer inclusion criterion than the title of this article and is also well-organized. Doesn't make it any less indiscriminate. You have not, as you never do in these discussions, addressed the actual policy issues in any fashion other than for all intents and purposes going "no it isn't, no it isn't no it isn't." Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT is bedrock policy, drawn from your beloved Five Pillars, so this claim that I have provided no policy-based arguments is both false and baffling. Your link is to an abstract and it does not indicate that the item in question discusses "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" to any significance and thus is not a reliable source. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the article passes it by being consistent with what Wikipedia is and is covered by reliable sources per any reasonable definition of the phrase. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto's repeated claims that the article is indiscriminate seem quite fraudulent. This article was spun off from the main article Cheshire Cat and this is the clear common topic for all this material. The article does not resemble any of the examples of indiscriminate info given by the WP:IINFO policy. The actual case against the article is most clearly stated in the article Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles but we see that this is an essay and so is inadequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your assumption of good faith and civility in for all intents and purposes calling me a liar. The fact that this garbage was split off from the main article is irrelevant to whether it should be kept. You know as well as I do, or you should because you've been told it enough times, that the listed items at WP:IINFO are not an exhaustive list of what can be indiscriminate, and even if it were, the article still fails multiple other elements of Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen too many hand-waving references to policy today to be tolerant of such misrepresentation. The topic of this article is clear and precise - the very opposite of indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite the reliable sources, meaning sources that have given significant coverage to the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture," that you claim establish the notability of this article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost none of the statements you wrote there is true. It is discriminate and there is no policy that prevents inclusion of this article. Verifiable references only will be included in the article in its current form. It is unoriginal in that are scondary sources quoted that refer to the subject of the article. At least one secondary source indeed references Cheshire Cat in forms of popular culture, political cartoons for example. It is verifiabe by any reasonable understanding of that term. Things do not become true simply because you state them. They certainly do not grow more true with repetitions. Please consider picking your battles and listening to what others have to say in AfDs. As it stands this habit of writing the same justifications for each deletion discussion regardless of the facts seems a little obstructionist to me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this is what I'm talking about. This is absurd. You are a caricature of yourself. somehow 11% of contentious claims cited is verifiable? Somehow one secondary source which says this:

Seeing images in 2004, depicting Vice President Dick Cheney as Darth Vader from Star Wars, John Edwards as the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, and John Kerry as Frankenstein’s monster, it is clear that some editorial cartoonists make connections between our popular culture and our political culture."

  • becomes enough to hinge an article on? That one line mention is precisely what Wikipedia defines as a trivial mention. I provide an argument explaining how the list is not distriminate and you respond with nonsense. You argue, facts to the contrary, that no policy exists preventing the inclusion of this article. The rest of your response can only be construed as baiting me. I can't think of a good reason why you would repeat what I wrote almost verbatim in your response other than that. How did you expect it added to the debate? Protonk (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as a matter of clarification. If one reads the article in question (the one from Political Science & Politics), even just the excerpt (though the article CLEARLY confirms this), the connection made by the author is not between the cheshire cat and popular culture but between populare culture and political culture. It is right there in the sentence. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is absurd is that you would devote so much time caricaturing yourself in these discussions rather than helping to improve the article in question. The examples themselves can be used to verify themseleves in many instances. That one article is not the only one on the topic. The Journal of Popular Culture has also had articles addressing the Cheshire Cat, particular in regards to its smile. I provide an argument explaining how the list is discriminate and you respond with nonsense. How do you think that adds to improving the article under discussion? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the only article, correct. but in that article there is only one sentence that mentions the cheshire cat (BTW, the subject of this article, not the article in question) and it does so connecting popular culture with political culture, not connecting the cheshire cat with popular culture. this secondary source includes the mention in one line, with no analysis given. The star trek trivia book mentions it in the context of TOS trivia. The blog about Prison break mentions it as a means to complain about a characters enunciation. I haven't read the "journal of popular culture" article but I have no doubt the reference will be trivial or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Protonk (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "no doubt" about something you "haven't read"? I'll keep looking for more sources, but if you're going to make assumptions about ones you haven't even read, then come on? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually yes. That's the beauty of oppositional research. I have no doubt that if the article in popular culture contained a dissertation on how the cheshire cat was inextricably linked to popular culture, we would have been made aware of it through the course of this afd. Oh boy and I glad I downloaded it In a 44 page article on the connection between the SMILE and popular culture, what would seem like the perfect place to discuss the cheshire cat, the author makes a reference once:

When my dentist moved out of Suite 1111 of the Medical Arts Building to a small house on the main thoroughfare between downtown and the mall area, there were some raised eyebrows among the dental community. But when he had a Cheshire cat grin painted in lurid colors on his picture window proclaiming this as The Smile Shop, it was going too far for staid dentistry. The ethics of advertising in the professions was in 1975 an open topic, and not only among dentists; even lawyers were moot on the issue. Ethics aside, though, this disembodied grin was simply infra dig, the sort of thing you might find in Tijuana or Bombay, but certainly not in Minnesota! For twenty years, it grinned at the passing parade, though my dentist sold the practice years ago.

  • Among the over 40 works cited, Alice and Wonderland is not among them, nor is any work referencing alice and wornderland. That's it. A throwaway comment. god that makes me happy. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could that possibly make you happy? Wouldn't you rather find sources that help improve an article and further our project's goal of being a comprehensive compendium of human knowledge? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes me happy to know that an improper citation was corrected. It makes me happy to know that one rationale (a gated article that looked like it could have provided significant coverage to the layperson) to keep an article turned out to be hollow. It makes me happy to know that at the completion of this afd, we will be one page closer to ensuring that all articles represent the five pillars as best as they can. It makes me happy to know that I can find sources and logic in order to advance my argument. Also, there you go suggesting that deleting an article is inherently unethical. AND there you go pretending like your goal (a comprehensive source for human knowledge) is the same as the foundations, when it is demonstrably different. Protonk (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't/shouldn't it make you happier to improve the article instead? Fortunately by the completion of the AfD in which there will most likely be no consensus, editors will be able to continue improving the article and therefore the project. My "goal", if I have any, is consistent with the founders: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia. Anything else would be anti-academic and against encyclopedic tradition: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I shouldn't be happier improving the article instead. Those quotes don't help, as you consistently trot those out (and one sentence from the first pillar) as a rationale to include content. What you exclude are the parts of the five pillars (and the rest of the first pillar) that suggest that not all things should be included in wikipedia. This, as a matter of fact, was not stated policy when wales made that quote you mention. the notability debate didn't really get into full swing until later. Also, as Diderot was the editor of a paper encyclopedia, I have to assume that in practice (and that's what we are talking about, the practice of maintaining an encyclopedia) he maintained some sort of editorial discretion. Protonk (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotes help, because they demonstrate academic and encyclopedic and even wikipedia tradition. As an educator, I strongly believe that so long as it is verifiable, then there is no really logical reason to suppress knowledge on a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors. And if you think because of our disagreements (you on delete and me on keep) in a couple of recent AfDs that somehow this suggests I do not believe in "editorial discretion," then you should keep in mind that I have argued and even nominated to delete dozens of unverifiable, pedophilic, unfixable, nonsense, disturbing, original research, hoaxes, how tos, etc. I really only argue to keep articles that I actively also try to improve and that I can tell a good deal of other respectable editors see value in. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how does anything in that paragraph refute the claim that you apply your own standards to articles for deletion rather than community standards? Or more specifically, apply a chosen subset of community standards Protonk (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone is apply his own arbitrary standards to aricle deletion rather than community standards it seems to be you, as a lot more people than who have argued to delete here worked on the article, read it, and argued to keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 people have voted keep, including people voting to merge or redirect. 12 people have voted delete or strong delete. Among those who voted keep/merge/redirect, only 6 have contributed one edit or more to the article in question. How is 6 a lot more than 12? Protonk (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2[edit]

  • Please see GFDL#Conditions. A cut/paste copy which breaks the contribution history breaks the license agreement. This is one reason why deletion is tightly controlled and should be used lightly. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But likewise when we have an article like this were deletion is clearly preferable, the edit history matters very little. This article does not bind together information, it attempts to prove a link; a subtle but clear difference. Itss deletion (and that of the edit history) is merely a consequence of it failing many policies, as already suggested elsewhere within this discussion. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the position advanced or conclusion reached by this article which is improper synthesis? All the article seems to be asserting is that the Cheshire cat has been referenced in the listed works. And it seems that you agree youself that this is so. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theory being advanced is that these individual instances in various films, books, and other locations are also instances of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture". Unless you are arguing that everything ever mentioned in any book, film, song, or other location is automatically elevated to being a significant instance of said object in popular culture, this is just an unbounded list of disconnected instances. Just because a similar idea appears in different locations does not mean that these locations are automatically linked. --Allen3 talk 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say unbounded list of disconnected instances like you're quoting something but when we follow the blue link, we just find WP:IINFO which does not say this. This inference is an improper synthesis. It seems doubly flawed in that the list is both connected and bounded. It is connected by the Cheshire Cat and bounded by the scope of Popular culture and so excludes the numerous references to the Cheshire Cat in science, say. Your rationale is like the Cheshire Cat - you have the frown but no body. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At present this article composed of nothing but a long list of examples faces one of three fates:
  1. The unsourced assertion that these examples are connected is accepted and this article is deleted as synthetic original research.
  2. The unsourced assertion that these examples are connected is rejected and this article is deleted as an indiscriminate collection of information.
  3. Reliable sources are provided showing that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a concept that has previously been published outside of Wikipedia.
I am willing to accept any of these three outcomes. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence places the burden of providing needed sources onto those wishing to keep the article. If you truly wish to save the article I would suggest that directing your efforts toward locating the needed sources. --Allen3 talk 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already been looking through the sources and have cited some. The main difficulty is that there are hundreds of sources containing millions of words. I fail to see any reason for haste. The only reason we're here is that Otto is scratching an itch. If the article is not retained in its current form then the content will just go back to the main Cheshire Cat article (where I now have much more to add). This activity is not productive and per WP:IAR should be terminated forthwith so that we use our time here better. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the reason we are here is because in the course of trying to improve Wikipedia by better organizing and naming a category structure I stumbled across this policy-violating article. That you feel the rude and unfounded need to reduce my actions here to "scratching an itch" speaks far more of you than it does of me in your complete and utter failure to assume good faith on my part and also speaks to the fundamental weakness of your position. Address the nomination, not the nominator. And again, if you think this stuff doesn't belong in the main article, then watchlist the main article and remove it if it gets added. That someone might litter the main article is not an excuse for building a garbage dump. Otto4711 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incident which brought you here also seems to be disruptive. Proposing that a category be renamed when you don't have a better alternative in mind seems to be similar unproductive churning. Such acivity does not help us improve the encyclopedia - it diverts us into empty discussion and conflict instead. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that you would think that bringing a category with an ambiguous name to the attention of the community in the hope of building a consensus as to what the best name for the category would be is "disruptive" demonstrates amply that you have no idea how CFD works and little idea how the consensus-building process of Wikipedia as a whole functions. Anyone looking at that CFD who isn't viewing it as an opportunity to lob another personal attack against me should be able to figure out that it is generating discussion about the best rename, which is one of the functions of Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion. The only one trying to turn Wikipedia into a battleground here is you, through your incivility, failure to assume good faith and your personal dislike of my point of view. Otto4711 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal dislike of "in popular culture" article is not a valid reason to delete them and calling those you disagre with "disruptive" or "incivil" does not advance a discussion about content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal love of hoarding trivia is not a valid reason to keep them. You love trivia so much, find or start up a Trivipedia and have at it. Additionally, you are misrepresenting my position regardling IPC articles. I do not categorically dislike IPC articles. Inded, I have linked in this very discussion an example of an IPC culture of which I not only approve, I !voted to keep when it was up for AFD. What I dislike is garbage dumps of trivia masquearading as articles that get created because editors can't be arsed to delete it and instead split it off from a main article and abandon it. I would appreciate in future if you are going to ascribe beliefs to me that you ascribe beliefs that I actually hold. I do thank you for pointing out that calling people with whom you disagree "disruptive" is bad form and I hope Colonel Warden, the only one in this discussion who has called anyone disruptive, will heed your words. As for calling out incivility, you don't seem to have a problem with it when it suits your purposes (*cough*DRV yesterday*cough*) so your hand-wringing over such charges here is...puzzling. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need when Wikipedia already is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs per its First pillar. If you believe these articles have potential, then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Yes, I don't mind calling people out for it when their only comment in a discussion is in effect to be incivil and not comment on the article under discussion, whereas here, Colonel Warden has in fact commented on the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what your first sentence means. As for the second, I think I've made it quite clear that I don't believe this article has potential. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first sentence, you said that the article should be in a trivia encylopedia, which is why I'm saying that Wikipedia, as an combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs can include what some deem trivia as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Trivia sections are heavily frowned upon and usually tagged with notices to either integrate the trivia into the main text or delete it. An article composed entirely of trivia, as this one is, has no main text into which it can be integrated. Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, which an article like this is consistent with. The overwhelming majority of editors actually smile upon trivia sections, which is why they make them, edit them, and defend them in AfDs in which a handful of only the same editors show up arguing to delete. This article is not entirely trivia as it has already been improved somewhat since the Afd began. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not an exhaustive compendium of knowledge. How can you have been here as long as you have and still not understand that? Editors make all sorts of unsuitable additions to articles. The fact that there are other editors who are as unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't mean that they should be ignored. These constant appeals to "there's other guys doing it" are the stuff of children, so to answer at that level, if other Wikipedia editors jumped off a roof, would you? Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is indeed an exhaustive compendium of knowledge. How can you have been here as long as you have and still not understand that? The unsuitable articles editors make are hoaxes, copy vios, and how tos and I have argued to delete and even nominated to delete such articles dozens of times now. The fact that a minority of vocal editors want to enforce overly restrictive inclusion criteria on the community is not really consistent with encyclopedic and academic traditions per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism, and User:McJeff#My wikipedia opinions. Comparing it to jumping off a roof is again apples and oranges, because an article like this one is unquestionably created and edited in good faith with editors actively working to add more reliable sources to it. It is not comparable to the example you suggest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still consider Otto's actions disruptive. In this case, it would have a lot simpler to propose a merger of the article back into the main article from which it was spun-off. Or to have sought to improve the article. But instead of discussing the matter on the talk pages for the articles in question, Otto rushes straight here with a repeat AFD and we get all this unnecessary drama. As for the language used, we should note that Otto starts this AFD with a polemic which talks of "battling" other editors whose work is described as "garbage". Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have already agreed in principle that such information can be encyclopedic thanks to your example of Champagne. The rest is then a matter of content editing to select and source the detailed content so as to improve the article per WP:IMPERFECT. You have provided no evidence to show that this cannot be done in this case and have provided evidence by a good example that it may be. If you wish to exterminate a particular woodchuck then you can edit the article to remove it, as I have done. Wikipedia is not Caddyshack. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have agreed is that such material may be encyclopedic in the presence of reliable sources that discuss substantively the concept of "Foo in popular culture." I have not and do not agree that a list of every mention of Foo makes for an article. And Caddyshack featured a gopher, not a woodchuck. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3[edit]

They're not associated with one another any more than a collection of quotations about the same topic (specifically discouraged in WP:NOTDIR) are. Deor (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are only about a the Cheshire Cat and only about it in popular culture; the main concern in any event is the topic and if you're concerned about the way the article looks then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, because the topic does have potential per such sources as the one about its use in political cartoons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are plenty of reasons for this article, and all of them are terrible. The fact that people happened to work on an article, even if a lot of people worked on an article, doesn't mean that the article is suitable for Wikipedia. A thousand editors could collaborate on an article about how Ronald Reagan was an alien from the planet Remulac, and another thousand editors could show up at AFD to defend it. Doesn't mean the article's gonna stay. AFD, as you really ought to know by now, is not a vote. The number of people supporting each side is irrelevant; it is the strength of the arguments that counts. So far there has been no refutation of the arguments made in favor of deletion beyond what amounts to "nuh uh! Otto4711 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet no valid or good reasons have been presented to delete it. The article is suitable for Wikipedia, because a sizable number of editors want to work on it and come here for it. Ronald Reagan being an alien and this article is apples and not even oranges but say footballs. I agree that AfDs is not a vote, but a discussion and so far there have been no really coherent arguments that justify outright deletion, only arguments for improvement. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several valid and good reasons have been offered for deletion, and have been answered with WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, it's the old "I know you are but what am I" line of defense. Hardly compelling. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree more, which is why I don't raise it. I leave that to those who don't have anything else to argue. Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the material was originally split from the lead article then it is in that article's history already. There is no need for a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a legitimate search term. Anyone interested in the Cheshire Cat is going to search for "Cheshire Cat". Get real. Otto4711 (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no idea how any of those readers found the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it is first on Google hits, you'd have to think that's how some found it. If you want to get a better sense, then why not ask all those who worked on it on their userpages, notify them of this AfD, and see what they have to say? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course searching for the exact article title on Google will bring it up first thing, that Google search proves nothing. Indeed Google searches are not exactly relied upon in AfD discussions full stop. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is the first article on Google, that would seem quite a strong indicator that there is little or no independent reliable sourcing for the topic, indicating that the topic is not notable. The article's position on Google, however, sheds no light on how people found the article by searching Wikipedia or indeed if people found the article searching through Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I strongly encourage you as the nominator of this discussion to post one of those AfD notice templates on the talk pages of everyone who contributed to the article to see how they found it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the five highlighted references in the Carroll book, one is a quote from a piece of pedophile fanfic, one is a quote from a review of another book and three discuss the possible inspiration to Carroll in creating the character. None of them speak to any level of significance to the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." There is no mention of the CC in Fforde's article, nor is there mention of the CC in the articles on any of the Thursday Next books. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count 24 references to the CC in that book (Hit "next"), some of them on restricted pages. As for Fforde, our Lost in a Good Book article mentions the CC, haven't checked the others. Having read the books, I assure you that the CC is one of the most important and memorable characters, much more important to the action and in many more scenes than her usually nonexistent husband Landen, say, impressions otherwise are a defect in our articles on them then. Going to google books and searching for "cheshire cat" "popular culture" provides some more likely refs. Anita Silvey's The Essential Guide to Children's Books and Their Creators points out that "...memorable characters, such as the Hatter, March Hare, Dormouse, and Cheshire Cat, to name a few, have become inextricable parts of our popular culture."John Z (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is all that the book says about the subject, in 500+ pages. Hardly the sort of substantive discussion of the topic that can serve as a reliable source, as corroborated by footnote 2 of WP:N: "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06.) is plainly trivial." Otto4711 (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course that book is an RS and the quoted statement is appropriate to include in the article. Because of its brevity, it is of course also correct that it does little to prove notability of the "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" on the ground of significant coverage. But it does go toward proving that the "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a notable topic on the ground of the content of this reliably, indeed authoritatively, sourced quotation itself. What it says is tantamount to saying that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a notable topic. A one sentence mention by an authority on computers that "Someone should write a book on the history of IBM, it is strange that no one has" would clearly be evidence of the notability of IBM. Cheers, John Z (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • that is a plain misreading of his point. The fact that the book mentions the Cheshire Cat only once does not make it unreliable--were we to depend on that book for any subject where it had significant coverage, then it would do. The fact that it only has a one line mention makes it a trivial mention in a reliable source. the footnote on triviality is in WP:N, not WP:RS. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit puzzled. I understand and agree with your and Otto's point, which he expressed somewhat infelicitously but with his meaning clear. I was clarifying the reason why this particular sentence does go toward notability of the topic, in a different way from "significant coverage," which is why I pointed it out. By the way, it seems to me the references I provided above may go some way towards answering some of your requests. Cheers,John Z (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This dude said 'Cheshire Cat' in a TV show" is not a "theme." To claim that the mere utterance of a two-word phrase is a "theme" is nonsensical. The notion that the use of a two-word phrase is notable because of the notability of the people who use it is wrong-headed, because notability is not inherited. Your assumption as to the reasons that any particular person uses a particular two-word phrase, in the absence of reliable sourcing that discusses why they chose that particular two-word phrase and not another phrase, is wholly your opinion and amounts to original research. Yes, primary sources are acceptable for documenting the presence of the two-word phrase, but they are completely and utterly insufficient to establish anything else about the two-word phrase beyond its simple presence. Your comments do not address the substance of the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, you may just possibly have found one bad item. that's an editing problem. DGG (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh huh, there's only one bad example in that entire article. The entire article is a bad example. And I'm still waiting for something even remotely resembling a reliable source that the mere mention of a thing constitutes a "theme." Do you really believe that the Cheshire Cat is a "theme" of "Prison Break" because it was mentioned one time in three years? DO you really believe that "The Outsiders" has as its theme the Cheshire Cat because one character said "chessy cat"? Or that the Cheshire Cat is a them of the comic strip Garfield because in one strip out of 30 years of publication the CC was referenced? Bollocks. If you really believe that then you have absolutely no understanding of literature and if you don't believe it you're arguing in bad faith. Either way, this "theme" business is nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the article on the character were under discussion, the notability of the character would be relevent. It's not. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they have been reaosnably refuted. Wikipedia gains from deleting hoaxes, libel, how tos, etc., but not from articles created in good faith that are actively being worked on and that a good deal of editors believe have value. A handful of editors in a five day AfD should not reasonably trump that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There you go again, saying something doesn't make it true. If Otto explains that google search looking like this is a sign that wikipedia is probably the instance of first publishing and you respond by saying that we ought to ask editors how they found the article, HOW is that a refutation? Protonk (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you see that that is what you're doing? Instead of going back and forth with me, why not help to see how we can improve the article and what we can save? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like Otto, I have no interest in seeing this article improved unless that improvement comes from some secondary source making a claim about the connection between the cheshire cat and popular culture. Barring such a source, the article is irredeemable. Besides, this time spent on afd is not exactly time I would normally spend editing or researching, so the comparison doesn't work for me. Also, stop telling me that I'm declaring something to be true without any supporting argument. That is incorrect. We can sit here and engage in gainsaying all night, but a reasonable, third party observer will be able to tell who is participating honestly in this discussion and who is stonewalling. Protonk (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they will see that I am participating honestly as I am actually making efforts to improve the article in question. Simply going back and forth with someone is time not spent improving whatever articles you do think worthwhile, which by the way I'd always be willing to help you with (and I say that in good faith and absolutely not sarcastically). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What collection of essays? I didn't link to anything in my reply to you? Anyway, I don't need to cite essays when the topic is notabile and verifiable and therefore meets what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't have to, I've seen you refer to it several times. Stop noting it, as there is no such policy as what wikipedia is. The subject is not notable, it should be delete or merged, and it violates WP:NOT. Why don't you respond with an actuall policy instead of pointing to a list of essays.— Dædαlus Contribs/Improve 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoted from the policy page:

    As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is indeed a policy about what Wikipedia is. The First pillar says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." The subject is notable and should be kept (I would be okay with a merge and redirect without deletion) as it is consistent with the First pillar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

    .
  • Which I believe the article passes as it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on popular culture or on fiction. The article as evidence by the efforts of myself and others in this discussion clearly "strives for verifiable accuracy", is certainly not "personal opinions, experiences, or arguments," and nor is it a "soapbox or advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." Nor is the article a "newspaper or a collection of source documents". Thus, the article is consistent with that policy. The fact that multiple editors have worked on it, argued to keep it, and visit the article in addition to the efforts to add sources indicates notability to a sufficient enough portion of our contributors and readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of editors who have worked on the article does not indicate notablity. Please, read the policy that I have cited over and over and over again, instead of evading. This article is an indiscriminate collection of information, which violates What Wikipedia is Not, an actuall policy on Wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is discrminate collection of specific references of a specific thing (the Cheshire Cat) in specifically organized examples in popular culture. It is consistent with our First pillar, which is also an actual policy on Wikipedia. I have read that Not policy and I, along with several others, who argued to keep including established editors do not believe it fails it. Plus, if we look at books on popular culture, we'll find sufficient references to the Cheshire cat to develop the non-list elements of the article. See for example, here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single one of the twenty books at the other end of that link appears to have a shred of discussion of the topic of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." As with the other trivial mentions already in the article, they merely mention the words "Cheshire cat" within their texts. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is not a policy. Please scroll to the bottem of the page where it says this is an overview. It references policies, it isn't one itself.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If worse comes to worst, we can always say to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as removing this article outright prevents us "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." In this instance, I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without deletion without prejudice for restoration as additional sources are added, i.e. assuming sources like those I linked to from Amazon.com are exploited as well during the AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping this article prevents us from improving Wikipedia, because it encourages the retention of these sorts of articles, that pretend to be about a topic but are not, that have no reliable secondary sources that are about the article topic and that are nothing more than passing mentions of a particular thing. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:STOP_MINDLESSLY_GAINSAYING_ANY_DELETE_RATIONALE_OFFERED_IN_AFD It isn't constructive to the debate. It adds needless frustration for editors who are REALLY searching to persuade. It adds no new information or argumentation and it require people to needlessly reiterate their rationale. It is borderline trolling. Stop. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:STOP_MINDLESSLY_GAINSAYING_ANY_DELETE_RATIONALE_OFFERED_IN_AFD It isn't constructive to the debate. It adds needless frustration for editors who are REALLY searching to persuade. It adds no new information or argumentation and it require people to needlessly reiterate their rationale. It is borderline trolling. Stop. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you already know, my comment was directed at you. I respectfully suggest you to step away from the computer and take a moment to consider whether copypasting others' comments and intentionally taking them out of context is truly helping Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approaching AfDs with the idea that it's your mission to delete article and expressing elsewhere that you would never argue to keep does not help Wikipedia nor reflect a willingness to consider the actual discussion. In any event, I have suggested to Protonk that we agree to disagee here and so have no intention of commenting to or about him further and hope that he will do the same so that a productive discussion can begin. I hope that you will not enflame things between he and I any further. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were blocked for sockpuppetry and vote fixing. I think that is an inappropriate way to approach AFDs, does not help Wikipedia, and does not indicate a willingness to consider the actual discussion. Again, I respectfully suggest that you take a moment away from the computer and think about whether or not continuing this discussion is beneficial to the project. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, you were blocked for sock puppetry and vote fixing. I was unblocked, because the allegations against me weren't actually true. Notice User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Account history, I never actually used my alternate accounts in the same AfDs. A checkuser showed that these other accounts alleged to be mine weren't. I respectfully suggest that you take a moment away from the computer and think about whether or not continuing this discussion is beneficial to the project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also unblocked, but my block duration was a lot shorter than yours. Also, I was only blocked once. The section on your account history was interesting. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well.. you were the one who decided to drudge up diffs from last year. But... I guess we can start talking about the article again, since you asked nicely. What aspect would you like to discuss first? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I am unsure if anything would make me vote keep. I find the concept of the article to be flawed - it's just a list of random junk. I would need multiple reliable sources talking specifically and in depth about Cheshire Cat's impact on popular culture, not sources that merely mention Cheshire Cat, Alice in Wonderland, or Alice in Wonderland's impact on popular culture as a whole. To repeat, sources specifically about the cat's effect on popular culture. Please please do not link me to search engines with the strings "cheshire cat" and "popular culture" plugged in. Assuming such sources exist, all the list style trash (basically the entire article) would need to be removed and replaced with prose written in an academic, formal tone that conveys the content of the sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To address Doctorfluffy's point: until this AFD started, little to nothing had been cited. From a standing start, I cited several items chosen at random or by others and found little difficulty in doing so. I have further been impressed by the sources that others have brought to the table such as Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture. So, the sourcing has improved rapidly when required and any remaining weakness is due to a lack of effort per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOEFFORT rather than the inability to do so. In this, the article is little different to most Wikipedia articles which likewise contain predominantly poor sourcing. Moreover, there are no facts here which require extravagant sourcing - the facts presented are not controversial or implausible. The sourcing issue is thus a straw man and insufficient grounds to delete. All that remains from Dr.Fluffy's rationale is the word trivia which means WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the word "trivia" and put a "WP:" in front of it you actually get an editing guideline, which clearly shows that the word "trivia" does not equate merely to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that guideline does not say that trivia should be deleted. It is a style guideline which advises against collections of miscellania which are, by their nature, too random to be considered good writing style. In cases such as ours, it advises: Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"). That's what we have here - a focussed list. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you learn about the usage of Q.E.D.? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you take a look at the actual pages in the much bandied-about "Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture," you would see that almost all of the visible references to the Cheshire Cat deal with Carroll's inspiration in creating the cat, not the cat's effect on popualr culture. There have yet to be reliable sources which are about the subject of this article, which is "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." You can verify that every item on the list exists until the cows come home; proving that they exist does not prove that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" in and of itself is an encyclopedic topic. Sources that address the topic of the article please. I've asked nicely for them ever so many times... Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we considered the cat alone to be insufficient as an influence on popular culture then we would merge with Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland as suggested above. Deletion would still not be appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you would ridiculously suggest suggest that T-Bag saying "Cheshire cat" in one episode of Prison Break means that Prison Break was "influenced by Alice in Wonderland"? An article which, by the way, is in at least as bad a shape as this one is if not worse. Deletion is appropriate because, say it with me now, there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. A list of times something is said is not a discussion of its influence on popular culture. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4[edit]

  • It is not beyond reason or precedent to expect that there be reliable sources that substantively cover a subject for there to be an article on the subject. Which specific sources presented here do you believe substantively cover the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture"? Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about something like this that states, "Cheshire cats found numerous adaptations in modern pop culture, and the famous feline grin is reminiscent of a dubious human character that the modern world represents." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But this article does not explore that train of thought. It explores one episode of Prison Break, and a multiude of tenuous links. It fails to find a common theme, so it spreads itself about trying to tie together loose ends. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or this, which states "It is now common to make reference to the Cheshire cat in pop culture and day to day conversation, using the analogy 'to grin like a Cheshire cat'." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you have one some random selections of prose which use the article title. Now justify how the phrase is a concept, and this concept notable, becuase neither you, nor this article, proves it one bit. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is multiple sources it suggests notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, multiple sources do not automatically suggest notability if they don't justify the theme. The whole reason why I support the deletion of this article - and the deletion of the pizza delivery article, while I'm here - is the lack of credible, coherent, and proven notability of topics which, elsewhere outside Wikipedia, would be considered trivial. You may call me a deletionist and I won't be offended, but if I were to look at this article and its random Google-hit citations, I see a random collection of tenuous links; not an article. Can it be fixed or saved? By deletion yes, for then a list of observations and tenuous mentions in the middle of sentences can be removed for the greater good. I fully accept you are passionate about this article, for whatever reasons, but I cannot accept, despite your rapid response to every valid delete suggestion, that this article should remain. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we can agree to disagree, because I am far more persuaded by the various valid reasons presented throughout this discussion that the article should be kept, but improved. As I have said as well, I am not opposed to using what we can to merge and redirect without deletion and without prejudice to unredirecting as additional sourcing is done. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Picturesofcats.biz allows submissions by anyone, and so is not reliable. Even so, the source only states one person's opinion of what the Cheshire Cat represents, and could just be speculating on what Lewis Carroll intended by it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming arguendo that this is true, they do not demonstrate that there are reliable sources that are substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." The first link has been dealt with already. The second includes exactly one sentence (the sentence you quoted) and the rest is again about what may or may not have inspired Carroll. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has already been noted at least twice, the accessible references in the "Alice's Adventures" book deal with possible inspirations to Carroll in creating the Cheshire Cat. They are not about what if any influence the cat has had on popular culture. "Lewis Carroll in the popular culture" has no content available through your link, so it can't be considered a reliable source for the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as we have no way of knowing what the book says about the Cheshire Cat or indeed if the CC is mentioned at all. As for how many books include the phrase "Cheshire Cat" on Amazon, that is simply a variation on the Google test. Ham salad sandwich gets 364 hits on Amazon. Are you suggesting we should have Ham salad sandwiches in popular culture (please god, let that be a redlink). Oxygen gets 146,000+ Amazon hits. Air in popular culture? Otto4711 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which at least has a source that details the topic, unlike this article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I'm guessing you only read the first few mentions of "Cheshire Cat" and generalized to the entire book. Not suprisingly, 4 of the first 5 mentions are exactly as you say, because they are a part of a chapter which analyzes the Alice works themselves. The first mention on page 51 is about a reference in a piece of pedophilic erotic fiction, clearly not about what inspired Lewis Carroll, but arguably not about "popular" culture, either. However after these few mentions we get to more relevant information. Pages 118, 126, and 137 talk about various illustrators' portrayals of the Cheshire Cat. Page 153 is about Jervis Tetch, the Mad Hatter villain from the Batman comics, who dresses up kidnapped children as Alice characters, including the Cheshire Cat, and this directly references one of the items already in the article; I've added the reference. Page 207 makes brief mention of Disney's portrayal of the Cheshire Cat, though I'm sure a a more substantial source could be found for that information. Pages 213 and 226 are about the 1985 film adaptation. Page 354 is part of a table which compares various films' scenes, and this page details when the Cheshire Cat first appears in each film. So there's plenty of support in just this book for the concept of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" and this is just one book that we found simply because it happens to have the words "Popular Culture" in the title, and that's not including the content that Google Books isn't letting us look at.
  • Second, just because a source is not available online does not make it an unreliable source. Go to a library if you want to find content of a book that is not available online. We don't reject sources simply because they can't be accessed instantly. But pure common sense would indicate that a book which puports to "...document any item of Carolliana, regardless of its date and no matter how minor or oblique..." would likely contain some mention of the Cheshire Cat. Come to think of it, that description pretty much sounds exactly like something you would assert to be an "indiscriminate collection of trivia", but for some reason a few people who publish books like to use it as a reference. I guess such "trivia collections" aren't so useless after all.
  • Third, "Ham salad sandwich" and "oxygen" are everyday objects, not fictional characters invented in the 19th century, so one would not expect books containing those phrases to be popular culture works inspired by those subjects. On the other hand, a book containing the phrase "Cheshire Cat" is likely either talking about Lewis Caroll's character, or is inspired by it, and it reasonable to presume that at least some percentange of those 7 thousand hits are popular works containing material inspired by the Cheshire Cat, and some percentage of those may even be works analysing popular works inspired by the Cheshire Cat, which would contribute directly to this article. Of course given that you hadn't even looked beyond 5 of 20 hits in a single book, I don't expect you to look through every reference in over 7000 books. Hopefully the closing admin will recognize the potential here and realize that a mere lack of effort to substatiate an article is not a good reason to delete. DHowell (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet nothing is actually said, other than "I saw it! I saw it!" --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 June 2008 (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.
Category