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. Pretty overwhelming consensus that this news story doesn't have the lasting notability required for a standalone article. Split 70/30 in favor of deletion, and quality of the arguments is high. NJ Wine's argument is particularly compelling. Kinda wish I hadn't read the article after reading through the AfD discussion though. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orville (cat)[edit]

Orville (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Facepalm I searched "Orvillecat" in order to watchlist in case someone ever had the dim idea to make an article, only to find it was already here. The encyclopedia is not a newspaper, we do not chronicle every half-baked, person-of-interest, funny-story-of-the-day out there. Ladies who walk into mall fountains and kids who videotape their father slapping them make a media splash for a few days, then disappear without a trace. If in a few months this becomes some epic "roflcoptercat" meme, then sure, revisit it. For now, it has hit a few blips in a google news search, one of which is just gawker. But this isn't about sources per se, it is about WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT and an overall WP:NOT in general. This is not what the Wikipedia is for Tarc (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, you'd delete Barack Obama if it weren't for his Twitter notability. Spoilsport. PS: It's been written about in Dutch, American, Canadian, and German media (reliable sources all of them) so you'll have to drop the "few blips" argument. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, I can see why a newspaper would cover this abomination, but it isn't enough to satisfy notability. Maybe we need a WP: You have GOT to be kidding me category for delete. ;) JoelWhy? talk 17:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You're obviously not familiar with the future of Wikipedia: if an article has references, it stays. This cat is obviously notable worldwide. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establishing notability has to be more than "X sources == article creation", though. We have meta concerns of scope and depth to consider; again, look at the case of the woman-in-fountain and how many news stories ran that day or in the next few days, but then vanished by the next news cycle. An encyclopedia shouldn't be covering the ephemeral. And for the record, I'd like to see that twitter page there canned too. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the worlds first taxidermy / UAV hybrid, that's a significant advance for Art & Science! How could this possible not be notable? --JasperWallace (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is appalling to me on personal level, but there are over four thousand different mainstream media publications reporting on this subject. It seems to meet the general notability guidelines too. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has plenty of independent sources, but that is irrelevant for a news story. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, stories like Orville the cat are assessed per WP:EVENTS, which has 5 criteria.

(1) Lasting effect (most important criterion) -- An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. Fail. Orville has no lasting effect in any area of life (e.g., legal, artistic).

(2) Geographical scope -- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Fail While this story has been reported around the world, it has not had an impact anywhere in the world.

(3) Depth of coverage -- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)." Fail This story has not received any deep, analytic coverage regarding its cultural impact.

(4) Duration of coverage -- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Fail It’s too soon to tell, but there is no evidence that Orville will have long-term coverage.

(5) Diversity of sources -- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." Pass There has been domestic and international media coverage of this event.

Considering that the Orville (cat) article fails 4 of 5 criteria, and particularly has no lasting effect, which is the most important issue in assessing the notability of events, this article should be deleted. NJ Wine (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RECENTISM. This story is a news spike if the is still around in a year then the article can be restored and enhanced. It can also be moved to Wikinews if it isn't there already. MarnetteD | Talk 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once notable, always notable, but you need real, sustained, independent coverage for notability in the first place. A group of news stories all at about the same time about an otherwise unremarkable subject is never enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of international news coverage, guessing now if it's a news spike is WP:CRYSTAL. Deleting because it offends our sensibilities makes Wikipedia:Systemic bias worse. Using dead pets is nothing new for Dutch "artists." [1] CallawayRox (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CallawayRox (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It gets ample coverage in reliable sources, which write in detail about it, showing images and even video. Dream Focus 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NJ Wine's discussion of WP:EVENTS. If this particular piece of art winds up having actual lasting notability, then I would see nothing wrong with recreating this article then. At the moment, however, the article's sources are nothing but a bunch of "interesting tidbits of the day" type news coverage, with nothing to show any lasting notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this falls under WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia doesn't catalog every silly stunt someone does. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a lot, though. Which stunts become history is an interesting question.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had totally forgotten about Balloon boy. Thanks for reminding me. Cigar guy was new to me: that's the future of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent. That response. Five stars and a good-natured bravo. That's a masterpiece of linksmanship. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these other news stories fall into the premise of WP:INN, which states the following: The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted. Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality because any individual may edit a page. For example, if there are 20 garage bands that have articles on Wikipedia, it is not a valid indicator that any other garage band deserves an article. Orville (cat) as well as some of these other articles deserve deletion. NJ Wine (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes both ways, NJWine. The continued existence of these articles, and keeps at AfD in many of those cases, is also food for thought. Indeed, the enduring notability in recorded history of what some consider absurd things for hundreds of years is what interests me. Sure, you could put some of these up for AfD if you wished, but there are thousands more of them. You could nominate Sam Patch, he was truly just an idiot who jumped off a few things, until he died doing it. Yet he is still written about 180 years after his death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, I agree that it's interesting what events get publicity for centuries. However, it is not our job at AfD to debate whether an event should have gotten media coverage, but rather whether that coverage makes the event notable or not. Sam Patch had plays and poems written about him, and became an eponym for people who jump into Niagara Falls, and thus that article at minimum passes the depth of coverage and duration of coverage criteria of Wikipedia's event notability guideline. If cat-helicopters become a craze, and it's given the name "Orvilling", then Orville (cat) will be notable. However, at the current time, the story is not notable, and it's too soon to have an article on it. NJ Wine (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NJWine, we are the choosers of Orville's fate! Plays, poems, tributes, please join me!

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Guessing" now that this is a news spike has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL, which is a policy that governs article space content, not Wiki space argument :). One thing that is certainly true is that Wikipedia is not the news, and it is not speculation to note that coverage on this is all very recent. It is as such impossible to gauge whether it truly constitutes long-term notability or a short-term spike in the news over a considerable curiosity. Obviously, recreate this if it's still generating interest over time, but until such point that that can be established this is a one-off news story about a one-off event/happening/curiosity. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NJ Wine seems to hit it right on the mark, especially concerning this event's 'lasting effect'. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: News coverage has slowed down not much. There is an outstanding offer of €100,000. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built CallawayRox (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't do much to address WP:EVENT concerns as detailed above, and that house essay is a tired ARS trope that IMO doesn't mean much of anything. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just because any body can edit wikipedia it doesn't mean that any old B******s can go in.Petebutt (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I saw coverage of this in a newspaper in London the other day and thought it was a good story. As this is being presented as a work of art, it seems quite comparable with The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living - the notorious work of Damien Hirst. See also cat organ - a medieval equivalent which has lasted quite well. People may well dislike such stuff but it is our policy not to delete for this reason. Note also that WP:EVENT is irrelevant because this is an objet d'art not an event. An event would be something like Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II or Transit of Venus, 2012 - occasions and incidents which are all over our front page, just like they are every day. Warden (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol a "work of art", what bullshit. It is an event ("man attaches copter blades to dead pet"), just as the girl who hiccuped for years was a story about the hiccuping and not the girl, just as the woman-falling-in-fountain is about that and not the woman herself, and so on. This is why we don't cover pop media trash; it flares for a few days before disappearing into yesterday's "remember that meme?" occasional recollection. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? Play him off, Keyboard Cat... Warden (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Minus the first sentence (no need for that), I agree with Tarc. No one would have known about 'Orville' had the helicopter event not occurred. Unless the article becomes a coatrack for this later event, I don't see how there's "lasting" notability about the animal itself. Lord Roem (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not temporary. You don't need to prove anything is lasting. This isn't an event, this is a thing, and this thing gets coverage. Dream Focus 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you are correct that notability is not temporary. But I disagree that this isn't an event. Additionally, I think the 'Keyboard Cat' example from above is actually helpful here. Orville the cat is 'famous' because his owner made him into a helicopter toy. Orville himself then isn't the item of focus, but the action of the owner. In the context of the Keyboard Cat, this is important in two ways. First, that was an event - the upload on Youtube - that made it famous; only after the fact and after time could we judge that; second, in that example, it was the cat itself that was interesting. Here though, its just the thing the man does, not the cat. I feel that this is a distinction with a difference - in one, a character does something which eventually becomes part of the cultural 'mind', the other is a similar event, but one which shows (at this point) no viability of being long lasting. The end result is that we don't keep a repository of all memes or strange local stories; rather, we keep those who truly leave a lasting cultural impression. Lord Roem (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not some routine YouTube stunt. The reason this artwork is famous is that it was exhibited at the KunstRAI which is Amsterdam's annual festival of contemporary art. This exhibit attracted press attention and it then seems to have been traditional media which has made it a big story. The artwork seems like other famous modern art works which generate public outrage such as the notorious pile of bricks at the Tate. If you don't like modern art, you are not alone, but this does not give you the right to censor it. Warden (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a second! I just came to an amazing find! It seems the source linking to the artwork (from 1989) is not the same as the sources discussing the recent 2012 story. There are two different stories here! One, the older artwork, which very likely is notable; the second, the wholly new media story about an American man and what he did to his cat. So... I think we need to *really* take a step back here. The cat-copter that is in the museum should be made into a separate article. Colonel Warden, thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's only one cat here and the artist is Dutch not American. Perhaps you're confused because all you've seen is the YouTube video where the artist, like most Dutch, speaks excellent English. Please read the article and the copious news sources. Warden (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 1989 was wrong. Back then, we didn't have the technology to rebuild the €100,000 cat. CallawayRox (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From [[WP:N: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." (bolding mine) LadyofShalott 18:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletionists are constantly adding creepy stuff like that to try to force us to conform to their rules but it's our policy that guidelines are not laws and that they should reflect our actual customary practise. And it is abundantly clear that Wikipedia does not wait for topics to mature over time but reports breaking news so routinely that we have a section on the main page called In the News. When I looked just now, this contained a recent plane crash, a recent massacre, a recent parade, &c. We even have templates like ((current)) which says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.)). So, that clause in WP:N is clearly a dead letter. Warden (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability guidelines trump drive-by tagging, sorry. We already had to take the ARS-specific tag away from your wiki-project, Warden. If this is an attempt to misuse generic article tags to improperly derail an AfD, then we can look into that behavior too, y'know. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, no need for the ad hominem. If you disagree, respond directly on point. So my reply would be: Warden, could you look at a recent edit of mine to the AfD? I think I have a compromise position to divide the article to the European cat-copter and the American one. This may be a better foundation on which to argue on inclusion, since we're talking past each other about different things. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a drive-by editor making a snap-judgement after taking a cursory glance. I have researched the topic and its background and so am quite sure that there is no "American one". A sensible way forward using ordinary editing, rather than deletion, would be to develop this into an article about the KunstRAI, as we currently don't have one. This is an annual event which has been running for over twenty years now and so is well-documented in numerous books about the art world, as it's Amsterdam's most prestigious art show. This article might contain a section about the 2012 event and say that Orville was a prominent exhibit that year, attracting a lot of international attention. Development in this way would be constructive, building upon the work of the first editors as recommended by our editing policy. Warden (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here if you wish to develop an article on an entirely different subject, feel free, But the subject of the "man who turns dead cat into remote control heli" is what we're dealing with here, a funny news-of-the-weird story just like dozens of others that get deleted day in and day out. You have yet to construct an argument to refute the WP:EVENT analysis elsewhere in this discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NJ Wine has done a fine job of explaining how this fails to clear the bar, so no need to regurgitate. It is /amazing/ the roadkill people will scrape off Google News and think appropriate to try and include here. Amazing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG - a topic (half cat, half machine) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Warden's analysis. I blame it, but, as said by CallawayRox, deleting because it offends our sensibilities is just a form of systemic bias. Cavarrone (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see a call to delete that is based upon "it offends sensibilities". Perhaps I missed one in my quick skim just now, so if there is one of those votes feel free to point it out. It would not, however, invalidate the majority of the deletion calls that are grounded in established notability guides though. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IDONTLIKEIT nature of this AFD has been obvious from the outset, starting with your use of the ((facepalm)) template. The nomination is full of opinionated value-judgements and so are the delete !votes which condemn the topic using loaded language such as "abomination", "roadkill", "silly stunt", &c. This topic is clearly been condemned not because of its lack of notability but, on the contrary, because of its great notability which caused you to look for articles about it. We have plenty of other articles about other similar modern artworks such as Bullet Hole and My Bed; there seems to be no problem with these and so a moral panic is not warranted. Warden (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have greatly misread the sentiments of the calls to delete if that is what you take away form it. My initial facepalm was for the stupidity of article creations that are based on the top entry of Google News for the day, not for the subject matter itself, a subject which has nothing to do with art, btw. The ARS mentality of rush rush rush to chronicle ephemeral pop media is a mission that is at odds with a project to build an encyclopedia. We have seen this mentality be turned away time and time again in AfDs lately. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"turned away time and time again in AfDs lately..." LOL, you don't watch enough AfDs, not to mention article creations never challenged. Creating articles is hardly at odds with the goal of building an encyclopedia, regardless of the subjective judgments which delete some but not all articles like this one. You created The Internet Defense League of all things, based on a one time minor flurry of press coverage, we don't facepalm your creations because its rude.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a)I pay attention to the important ones, unlike some who watch afd like a hawk, b) creating bad articles is at odds with encyclopedia-building, c) feel free to nominate the IDL if you like, that'd be an interesting table-turning discussion for a change. --Tarc (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to nominate it, it doesn't harm anything by existing. But neither did Ate my balls.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To repeat unchanged what I said at the AfD for Rally Squirrel, "Delete as not encyclopedic. The nearest rules are NOT NEWS and NOT TABLOID--the sort of material which is written about because readers find it amusing, the sort of press or broadcast or online material that is best termed "filler". None of this is ever encyclopedic content unless the story becomes a classic, in which case the article, like an article on an internet meme, should be describing the spread of the meme, not the underlying triviality. It's hard to codify this into written rules, so we have to rely upon the judgment of people who know the difference between an encyclopedia and chatter. My wording of it, is the notability has to be about notability for something. This is one of the shortcomings of blind use of the GNG--it should rather be interpreted as the screen for what things that might be notable really are, rather than an overarching rule making any imaginable topic notable." For things that are actually significant, we can make a probable guess that there will be historical interest, and keep them. For things which are actually trivial, there is no way to make a guess, and we should delay coverage. How long? until they begin to be written about in an analytic way in serious works, not just current periodicals. My favorite example is The Great Cat Massacre, which is notable because a major historian used it as the springboard for a general cultural analysis in a famous book. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we determine "actual significance" or "actual triviality". Your idea is that "we have to rely upon the judgment of people who know the difference between an encyclopedia and chatter", right? The trouble is that what we have here are people who don't know the difference between an internet meme and an exhibit in an art festival; or the difference between the Netherlands and the USA; or the difference between an event and an object. Exactly who gets a !vote in your view? Warden (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am saying it has to be by the consensus of people here, as there is no other possible standard. I consider publicity stunts and internet memes examples that usually are not, and would take very strong evidence to convince me. Others will use their own judgements. If you think this something important in the world, your values for importance are not the same as mine, but I can't prove mine right. I don't see this as a place for expounding my own philosophy. All I can say is, look into what it is, and see if you really think it's important as either art or perversity, or for sociological or practical significance. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't the place for every internet meme that catches a brief moment of notoriety. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and: I'm going to approach this from the articles above that have been referenced that I've had a hand in creating, Keyboard Cat and Crasher Squirrel. Both of these are specifically about a simple idea that became part of the remix culture and went viral as a result of that, thus gaining attention in part for that way. Yes, I know that there were news stories on these pieces that came on slow news days, but that's not the limit of the coverage, because there was more after that fact (eg, the national park taking advantage of the meme to draw interest via Crasher Squirrel). I created/improved those articles after seeing the enduring coverage of those topics.
  Now, relating these to this Orville picture, I haven't seen any indication of it being a meme, or even a popular video (in which case we could list it as List of Internet phenomena but the sources don't support that). All I've seen of it is the brief "odd news of the day" segments. (Heck, even KnowYourMeme, a user-contribution-run site, doesn't have a user-made entry for that, and as a contributor there, I would have expected that if this was meme-worthy, it would have easily had one by now.) Maybe it will catch on, but that's directly a CRYSTAL problem, and there's no appropriate redirect target (maybe perhaps to the art exhibit?). --MASEM (t) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the creator of Crasher Squirrel is anti-Orville, we're about done here I think. It is true it hasn't taken off as an internet meme.But y'all need to enjoy this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Just in case my sarcasm detection meter is broken) I'm not trying to speak as the authority on this, only that this is how I would justify the difference between both articles I mention and this one. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, its a subjective determination always, but your position is fair.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet again, we seem to have the delusion that the subject is an internet meme. It isn't and never was. It is an artwork which is been created by a professional artist, exhibited by a professional art gallery and entered into a major art fair. The artwork now has a six figure price-tag and has received at least one offer. The subject should therefore not be compared with other internet memes but with other similar notorious artworks such as My Bed, Equivalent VIII or The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. Warden (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (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.