Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat physics

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat physics

Delete, cute but unencyclopedic/original research/unverifiable/all that. BJAODN? FreplySpang (talk) 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with above. --Durin 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic, in spite of the fact that a cat's tail is currently swishing across my keyboard as I type. Joyous 02:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no BJAODN. Cute, but not funny or weird enough for that. android↔talk 02:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonencyclopedic. Not bad enough for BJAODN. Also, it's pretty widespread on the Internet: [1], [2], [3]. All three have copyright notices, but the last says the piece itself may be in the public domain. But it's still not an encyclopedia article even if it isn't a copyvio. --Angr/_comhrá 05:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, unverifiable, but not really BJAODN material. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. With great sadness. El_C 07:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy for the reasons listed above. Firebug 07:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of stale, outdated and oft-repeated allegedly humourous internet lists such as this. Average Earthman 08:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Agesander 12:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This user is a sockpuppet of banned Iasson. Thryduulf 13:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is, of course, the only important piece of cat physics. sjorford →•← 14:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And what the heck, include it in BJAODN just because we don't have GJAODN. --Idont Havaname 20:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think I got this very same crap via email more than once! Master Thief Garrett 03:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Wikipedia is the kind of place where this eminently sensible article can cohabit with such gibberish as the Rules of Acquisition. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd change my vote if the content could be contextualilzed within a bona fide phenomenon such as a notable book that made these popular or a well-known and long surviving internet joke that has documentable history and interest.Tobycat 00:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Wikipedia is the kind of place where this eminently funny article can cohabit with such lies as Evolution. RossNixon 10:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJAODN. I think it's hilarious, but of course untrue. (or is it strangely true?) Deco 05:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.