Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of cats (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 19:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of cats

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is largely un-encyclopedic - mostly Original Research. It reads more like an essay on the media's treatment of cats than anything else. I do not think this article has improved since its former AfD. Bensci54 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept nor is it encyclopedic.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content was changed quite radically recently. The change was reverted but the novice editor reverted it back. I have reverted again to the long-term version which is about publications covering cats. This seems to be a reasonable start on the topic and the worst case should be merger with a page such as cultural depictions of cats or cats and the Internet. Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first half of the article is a list of unnotable publications, the second OR, as the nominator has noted. Cultural depictions of cats is what this mess should aspire to be (but fails miserably to even approach). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are definite problems with the article's tone and sourcing, but I don't think the concept is invalid for inclusion. My issue is that the article's subject has heavy conceptual overlap with Cultural depictions of cats. It seems better to give it some remedial editing and merge under the Modern culture heading there. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The massive block of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at Media_coverage_of_cats#The_Cat_Archetypes has to go. It reads more like a college essay than an encyclopedia article and has no sources; this concept would go at Cultural depictions of cats anyway. Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Catnip Times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Purrington Post were found not notable, not sure why there should be an article just for them but Cats and the Internet could even include that. The magazines could be covered at an improved List of pet magazines. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to splinter off from cultural depictions of cats. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with arguments for deleting by above editors. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. It is predominantly, perhaps entirely, WP:SYNTH. --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a fork of Cultural depictions of cats, as noted above. We have almost always deleted "fork" articles. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Let's have one decent article and not two "eh" ones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 28 November 2019 (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.