Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cat (term)

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 no consensus to delete. - Philippe 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fat cat (term)

Fat cat (term) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This page is a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not. A very good definition already exists at Wiktionary. While encyclopedia pages may begin with a definition, Wikipedia policy requires that they have something beyond merely lexical content to survive at Wikipedia. Despite a number of attempts on a number of different pages, no one has yet found any content that was any better than the Wiktionary entry. I see no future potential for expansion past this dictionary entry. But if I'm wrong, the page can always be created when that non-lexical content is created. In the meantime, we should continue to point the people who want to write dictionary entries over to Wiktionary where the editors and policies (such as the verification rules) are better tuned for pages about words. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Rossami misunderstands the policy. It states that articles should have genuine potential to become more than merely a dictionary definition. It has that, with a 'use in culture' section which details the impact of the term. This widely used term, covered many times in reliable sources, is no less notable than any other in Category:political terms. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don’t see how the nominator misunderstands policy in this way, the user specifically states they think there is "no future potential for expansion past this dictionary entry" - maybe you disagree with them on this point but the issue is certainly addressed. Guest9999 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that the statement "Wikipedia policy requires that they have something beyond merely lexical content to survive at Wikipedia" is completely incorrect, if interpreted in an immediatist (rather than eventualist) sense, as the following comment seems to indicate. In any case, the article deals with the impact of the word, which is within the scope of an encylopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Currently the "Use in Culture" section is just original research. The first sentence is completely unsourced and the seocnd doesn't link to any sources that support what is stated; just to examples that a user has infered the statement from - i.e. synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I understand the policy quite well. I also know that there is a great deal of difference between eventualism and ignoring a page which has been unable to be improved for a significant period of time. The earliest versions of this page date back to June 2004 (then simply at the title Fat cat). Ignoring the spin-outs for the Rescue Rangers character and the record label (and several short-lived versions such as the non-notable food truck), there has never been a version that rose past the level of dictionary definition. Eventually, we have to admit that there is nothing encyclopedic to say on the topic.
    To Mostlyharmless' other point, usage notes are exactly the kind of content that one would expect to see in a truly great unabridged dictionary like Wiktionary. Social commentary about lobbying, campaign finance reform or executive compensation belong in those articles, not glued in here just because a cartoonist casually used the slang term when making the reference. Even assuming that the original research concerns can be addressed, merely adding a "use in culture" section is not a free pass around the requirement to find encyclopedic content. Rossami (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I !voted for deletion of a previous unreferenced version, but this has the beginnings of an article. This really does have a specific political meaning in the US that lasted half a century until campaign finance reform, and a similar meaning remains in the UK, while in the US it has lapsed into a more general usage (if it's used at all). In other words, it isn't a "usage note", but an actual meaty topic. I'll add some material in this direction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Having encountered the term in history studies, I think it has the potential to be expanded into something much more than a lexical page. Keep in mind that wikipedia does not have deadlines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The essay you just linked to states "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Guest9999 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and over several years of deletion discussion nothing seems to have emereged that would indicate that this article can be anything more than a dictionary definition. The current sources used in the article aren't actually about the term, they're just examples of it being used and putting them in this context would seem to border on original research. The fact that a phrase has been used - even if it has been used in important situations - shouldn't mean it warrents an article without reliably sourced evidence that it (and its use) have been the subject of coverage and commentary. Guest9999 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep important concept and worth an extended discussion. Encyclopedias and dictionaries overlap. This is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per preceding. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per preceding. Lily1104 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef and original research. You take out the WP:OR in this article, all you're left with is a dictionary definition. BWH76 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition plus some vaguely related material in the History section. I don't see the potential for an encyclopedia article here. We already have an article at Campaign finance reform which seems a more logical place for the material currently included in the History section.--Michig (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Dictionary definition. The potential to become encyclopedic mentioned is not there to strain credulity. Etymology is not encyclopedic, but lexical. "Examples of people called this" is not encyclopedic, but random listing. When a lexical term can become encyclopedic is when it is itself a culturally active term. "Fat cat" is not. The fat cat has eaten all the mice. <shrug> Not much there. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

look it up on google - just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it hasn't been significant. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep not just a dictionary def, the article also contains history of the term and other details. Fosnez (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I have seen this term in many contexts outside of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia article on it can be developed. Captain panda 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - most of what is being added to the article isn't actually about the term fat cat - it is about those described as fat cats - businesspeople and political donors. To me this seems like a violation of WP:NPOV - articles on other perjoratives describe the use and history of the term, they generally avoid taking the description of the term and attributing it to the group it is meant to demean. If the term itself has been discussed that is one thing, it is another just to take instances of when the term has been used and then turn the article into a POV content fork of Campaign finance using the title as a coatrack(links to essay) with which to list the insults against a group of people. Guest9999 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice on recreation An article on fat cats can probably be written. It would detail things like what impact they have on the political decision making process, what is being done to curtail or encourage their contributions, and what the public in general feels about them. The current article though is a dicdef and does not belong on wikipedia. Taemyr (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if this word is deleted, are we going to destroy everything in Category:Political_terms too? Cause that's the implications of the deletionist tone being voiced here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

wax anyone? Anyway, to your question; ABC countries is not a dicdef, it is a short article about the pact of 1915. Absentee ballot is an article about methods for casting votes without turning up, not a dicdef. Absurdistan is a dicdef and I would vote for it's deletion if it was up on AfD. The aestheticization of politics looks to be a stub about a concept, there is little other than a dicdef there as of now but that I feel has more to do with it's stub status than anything else. So using the excellent sampling method of picking the articles in alphabetical order and a broad sample of 4 articles we find 2 that is not dicdef's 1 that probably could become more than a dicdef and 1 article that probably is a dicdef. Does this answer your question? Taemyr (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I believe this could be more than a dictionary definition, if it isn't already. — brighterorange (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (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.