Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttered cat paradox

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buttered cat paradox

I oppose the deletion, but I want a reasonably definitive discussion on whether this is worthy of inclusion. Fourohfour 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep; somewhat silly, but nevertheless a well-known and mentioned joke paradox. Fourohfour 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a joke book. Non-notable joke with 61 Google hits. Brian G. Crawford 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that I've heard this from more than one source, and reading this article was the third time (at least). If it were really that obscure, I doubt that would have happened. The fact that this particular title choice isn't that common (fair enough) doesn't mean the joke/situation hasn't been described under other names. Maybe the name of the article should be changed, maybe not. Fourohfour 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It's impossible to judge the true "notability" of this sort of thing, it has to come down to the entirely subjective: I've heard of it, I like it, I wanna keep it. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm pretty sure this is decently well known. kotepho 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete appears interesting buyt not particularly notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable joke. Haikupoet 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kotepho. ClarkBHM 05:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, being mentioned in a number of popular science magazines, even though it's in the "joke" section, makes this "experiment" notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable joke. --Terence Ong 10:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a widespread joke but still a joke and not a paradox. Also, it's a ripoff from uncyclopedia. Gazpacho 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment; re:Uncyclopedia ripoff; the article may (or may not) be (I haven't checked), but the concept has been around for years, so on that basis alone would simply warrant rewriting from scratch, not deletion. Fourohfour 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's widespread and notable.
  • Delete, this is just part of Murphy's law application for antigravitatory cats. While a funny joke, it isn't really notable unless we start incorporating other uncyclopedia terms that have somehow become "mainstream". Radagast83 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Funny, but Wikipedia is not a joke book. Peter Grey 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because its a humourous notion doesn't immediately make it somehow unworthy of a page in Wiki. It's a widely distributed 'theory' that has become so widely know that people often refer to it simply as the 'cat/toast' paradox with no other explanation - so a page in Wiki would seem richly deserved. And if we can find space for Cleveland Steamer and the Shocker, then why the hell not this? Rewrite it if you must, but delete it? Take the stick out. FreeMorpheme 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR nonsense. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. Stifle 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I heard of this years ago and I think it's not just a joke but a good commentary on thought experiments. --Joelmills 01:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Student Academy Award winning film featuring this "paradox" was released in 2003. The Uncyclopedia article for this was created in 2005. Unless RIT has a time machine, this didn't originate on uncyclopedia. This is a pretty notable idea and I've heard of it in many places. Shadowoftime 20:03, 2 April 2006 (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.