- 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. Comments with WP:AGF violations are disregarded. Sandstein 10:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
De Bethel cats
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- De Bethel cats ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term "De Bethel cats" is rare and there are very few sources for this. It seems that a pair of artists had a distinctive style, that's cool, but I don't see sufficient sources to convince me that their art form passes WP:GNG - all I see are few mentions in passing plus some captioned photos. I'd suggest a merge to the artists page, but it does not exist yet, and I am not even sure if they are notable. If they are and their entry is stubbed, merge and redirect could be considered, not that there is much to merge here (give that right now the article is a single sentence and the sources I see don't suggest it could be expanded beyond a short paragraph at best). Anyway, the issue is not length, of course, but failing notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Minor coverage, GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 12:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination seems to be retaliation for
this comment earlier today; tsk. These artworks were covered in a TV programme which I watched the other day and, as they are covered in detail elsewhere too, they pass
WP:GNG. The fact that the artworks are now rare and collectable is not a reason to delete as we don't cover just mass market items like
Beanie Babies. See
Wally Bird for another curio of this sort. I created that article 10 years ago and, while it is not going to be featured any time soon, it's not a problem either.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please avoid personal attacks. You fail to address the issue of how this topic passes WP:GNG, so please focus on the issue at hand. PS.I am confused: which article was created by you 10 years ago? Anyway, the other article linked (Wally Bird) also seems to have issues with sourcing and notability, and I'd suggest improving it before it ends up discussed here. (No, this is not a threat, just friendly advice) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ Andrew Davidson:It is a problem, as sourcing is the same today as it was ten years ago: not enough. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think this is a summary of the relevant TV show -- no idea if the site is reliable (or if the show can be a source?) but it provides some support for the idea that the cats are "a thing" which attracted the interest of collectors. ~ oulfis 🌸( talk) 05:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete according to my search, it fails GNG. b uidh e 01:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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.