Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HRG's cat

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HRG's cat

Interesting, but not notable - the article's claim to notability is that it's widely popular in internet forum discuission - but Google says 'not really' - a 100 odd hits, but just two forum [1]. --Doc (?) 10:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense or sub-cult ephemera. No anagrams found. Paul Klenk 10:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP KEEP This stuff i noticed in my University Philosophy book. It's some kind of test to determine if something is real (in a philosophical sense). If you vote to delete u are discrediting our beloved Wikipedia. ARTICLE NEEDS CLEANING UP 58.104.87.64 11:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference to a philosophy book, I might change my mind --Doc (?) 12:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough. Nandesuka 12:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge This belongs in an athiesm article, or something related. Roodog2k 14:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Don't merge, Delete. I wonder if Schrödinger's cat could beat HRG's cat? Dottore So 15:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [Changed fron Reserved Alf 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)] (Yes, Dottore, it would, but only if you didn't open the box) Alf 15:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No verifiable information to merge unless a reference can be provided. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The arguement is used on discussion boards from my own experience but I'm not sure if thats notable enough for an article. Falphin 19:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[
• Delete. Non-notable thought experiment. Also suggest Last Thursdayism be considered. Sdedeo 20:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --tranquileye 00:46:13, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the original author. I guess I'm really not entirely clear what Wikipedia's "notability threshold" is (ten thousand people interested in the subject? I really don't know, and I can't find the relevant guidelines), but HRG's Cat is an argument that's seen thousands of pairs of eyes and thus that someone might want to look up. I guess I don't see the harm in having an entry on it. --Hyperbole 23:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you show it has been mentioned other than in a couple of internet-fora? If you can, you might still save it. --Doc (?) 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've seen references to HRG's cat on CARM [2], AARM [3], ARN [4], and Theologyweb [5]. So, four Internet fora in all. The argument is also referenced on Paltalk discussions. I'm certainly not going to take the stance that it's the most notable atheist argument ever - certainly not up there with the "problem of evil" - and I wouldn't object to it being merged into some larger "atheist arguments" kind of page... but I consider it at least minimally notable, and growing. --Hyperbole 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep, the arguement may be notable if it explains what kind of an attack is it, and how it is used. Here are some sources I found. [6], this site(a wikipedia mirror with some additions) odly enough considers HRG's cat related to Worship? [7]. Another site, [8] "Why is your supernatural explanation better than HRG's cat, who created the universe last Thursday?". Three references here, [9] but since carm changed its links the articles are lost as far as I can tell, or are in the depths of the old topics. Finally at CARM, [10], [11]. There are others but that is enough. As far as it being mentioned elswhere that doesn't make notability in my opinion which is why this sic, and strange article still exists.God kills a kitten Another example is the Tourist guy and the Trammie article which I have no idea why it is notable. . Finally theres Eternal newbie which is internet slang I've never heard.(I've heard Newbie, Noob, etc but never Eternal noob. Falphin 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't tell if this is really notable or not, but perhaps it should be mentioned (there is too little content for me to call it a merge) in Last Thursdayism.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.