Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest cats

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest cats[edit]

List of oldest cats (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)

I've just dealt with an OTRS ticket (VRTS ticket # 2017121710005874) about this list. The correspondent has a cat who is over 20 years old, and provided documentary evidence of this fact in the form of the cat's vet record. This obviously isn't a published source, but it highlights the fact that there are likely many cats out there old enough to qualify for inclusion in this list - only a small number of whom will have been written about in published sources. This rather undermines the point of the list, in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 00:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 00:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rationale for deletion isn't very strong. If there is a 100 year old cat that lives in a mystical forest and hasn't been written about in reliable sources, that doesn't immediately render the list of "Oldest known cats" null and void. You could argue the same thing about oldest living people, the list is still valid regardless of whether it's unequivocally complete. If the list does get too long, then the barrier to entry should be raised.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did think about the comparison with oldest living people, Zxcvbnm, but the age of humans is much better documented, and it seems likely that the proportion of old cats whose age cannot be verified by reliable source will be much higher than for people. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cordless Larry: Every Wikipedia list article (of at least 100 and above entries) there is high chance it is not accurate and may even never be. That's why {{incomplete list}} and {{Dynamic list}} as well as over 10 related templates exist. Just agree this will obviously be kept as you misthought criteria for inclusion to be perfect. Wikipedia itself is not perfect and will never be either –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I agree with you. Frankly speaking even myself when I saw the title of the AfD, I already thought I will !vote delete, because I think I will meet random arrangement of cat names with unsourced exaggeration, but I saw otherwise. (Though not saying the article is perfect. It actually even needs cleanup, but not deletion). –Ammarpad (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tried to find a reason for deletion but couldn't, sure the topic could be more notable, but I think someone must benefit from this information being here. Unjustified reason for deletion, and the article itself seems to be meeting all WP guidelines. Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • grumble grumble keep, grudgingly... prime example of listcruft, but the stated deletion rationale does not seem to disqualify the list. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Eh, well ... my first cat died two months short of 20, but even so, I don't see the problem. The article plainly states "verified" (although the non-verified entries need trimming). It's not indiscriminate, and the cutoff can always be tweaked if it gets too long. That being said, there are some multi-hundred entry list articles out there, so I'm a bit at a loss to understand how the list potentially being large is a valid deletion ground. Nha Trang Allons! 22:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing that the list should be deleted because it might become very large, NukeThePukes, but rather that the number of verified old cats will always be a small proportion of the actual number of old cats, if that makes sense. I think that makes the list pretty much useless, because it's a list of oldest cats...apart from all those other old cats. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could argue, with exactly as much justification, that the various supercentenarian lists are useless because (of course) there'll have been many oldsters who either weren't noticed by the press, weren't verified or just otherwise slipped through the cracks. So stipulated, but it's entirely possible to set forth a list of the oldest verified cats, although I expect the goalposts would shift to well past 20. Nha Trang Allons! 22:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Agreed the reasoning here is a bit confounding, but I guess I'm answering the question "should it be around"? I was the reviewer who initially approved this, and it's by far not my proudest work, although I agree it could easily be seen as crufty, but it's a pretty reasonable subject, and one I would imagine people would expect Wikipedia to have. I used to keep on top of maintaining it, but it's become a bit of a unverified mess lately, which (and I know, horrible reasoning) is kinda a sign of it's value to folks. Now if we're looking to dump something, the standalone cat pages seem might need to be scratched. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the list is probably not completely accurate and there are probably other cats out there that are old enough to be added to this list but there owners haven’t done so but i do not feel this list should be deleted just because of that. There are hundreds of world oldest lists on the wikipedia for all kinds of animals dogs, cats, Horses, monkeys etc and most of them are also probably not one hundred percent accurate due to the fact animals are not issued with a birth certificate when born so if this list is deleted will all the others also be deleted for the same reason. Because birth/death certificates are not issued to animals all the owners can do is provide the next best thing such as veterinary documents and records etc but never the less these animal lists make a very interesting read and provide amazing insight into just how long some animals can live for which could be handy for research and other purposes so in my opinion i think these lists should be left online for future people to view and read. renault.rich (^ᴥ^) talk 18:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.154.199 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep definite keep. I thought I will see random list of unsourced cats, exaggeration and fictitious entries but I saw otherwise. The list has definable criteria of inclusion and more importantly sourced. Plus many insightful thoughts have already been offered above by other editors. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I think this page is stupid, this is the type of content I would expect an almanac to contain. I find no policy-based reasons to delete this. I expect this will show up at AfD again, hopefully only after somebody has found a policy-based reason to request deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_oldest_cats&oldid=1138017863"