Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Selfies

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Selfies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A book that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The article has a reception section, but it does not actually include any inline citations to the reviews it discusses, and I could not find them. Additionally, at least one of them (the Northwich Guardian) appears to just be a small, non-notable local paper. I was unable to find any real reviews or coverage upon multiple searches - the best I could find were these two links, and neither one of them are what I would consider to be actual reviews. The author does not appear to be notable either, so there is no valid target to merge or redirect to as an alternative. Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Animal. Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – apparently no reviews and no other substantial coverage. I wasn't able to find the review, if it is a review, in Your Cat Magazine, but it's probably moot as Your Cat Magazine's probably not a reliable source. The Northwich Review's comments are on the website of its sister publication (?), the Knutsford Guardian, and they run to three short sentences. The only halfway viable source seems to be the puff piece in the Mirror, which alone counts for not very much. As the nominator says, there's no plausible redirect target and probably no scope to cover this in the enyclopaedia in any form. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arms&Hearts Andre🚐 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the two previous supporters for the deletion of this article. Pahiy (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2022 (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.