Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Malarky Ying Yang

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 redirect.--SB | T 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misty Malarky Ying Yang

How notable, really, is a former president's daughter's cat? And I suspect that, even if it is kept, this article is doomed to remain a stub forever. Bduddy 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Bduddy 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A president's cat is notable under "Historical cats". --DrBat 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valrith 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Is there a list somewhere that this could be merged and redirected into? --Arctic Gnome 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge article started as REDIRECT Amy Carter. No substantive achievements claimed for this cat (although it is a good-looking one). And editors might keep WP:CIVIL in mind ! Dlyons493 Talk 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, presidential pets are inherently notable. And didn't we have this same debate a couple of months ago? NawlinWiki 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update We sure did. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muezza, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moortje, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India (cat) (2nd nomination) NawlinWiki 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a bog-standard pet cat, for God's sake! -- Necrothesp 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Amy Carter, the cat's owner. Pretty much all the content here is already in Amy's article anyway. --Metropolitan90 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• trivial but notable. mergeto Amy Carter per Metropolitan90. Ohconfucius 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Associations with famous people do not automatically confer notability. wikipediatrix 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if the President owned a goldfish would that be notable? Let's get real. I know that the concept of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopaedis is unfashionable but there is no need to knock another nail into the coffin. BlueValour 23:46, 17 August 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.