Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead cat

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 keep. There is consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This dab page is 100% partial matches. The only real dead cat is apparently a sound-absorbing cover for a microphone, which isn't even on this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although I don't feel enormously strongly about the matter, I think this page is helpful. The dead cat microphone cover is on the list and the word "windscreen" has been added to the title rather by way of disambiguation. Similarly "dead cat bounce" and "dead cat stock" are two descriptive titles where "dead cat" is the operative adjectival phrase which can also be used as a noun in itself. The expression "dead cat rebound" is also used.[1] There is also a dead cat strategy for which there could be an article.[2][3] but the word "strategy" isn't crucial here – it could be "tactic" or "ploy". Personally, I wouldn't have included Schrodinger's cat but I wouldn't go and remove it either. Thincat (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've just added another entry – a series of best-sellers. Boris's dead cat strategy has potential too. Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That entry is precisely what dab pages are supposed to exclude: see WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't make much sense in this context and, as WP:PTM is just a guideline, we are quite free to have exceptions if they don't seem appropriate. The history of this page is that it started as a redirect to cat, then the redirect was shifted around to other pages. In such a case of reasonable multiple choices, the page we have seems a good aid for the reader who is looking for one of these topics but can't recall the exact title. Deletion would clearly make matters worse. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a disambiguation page, and only has to meet the standards of disambiguation pages of disambiguating different meanings, which it does. —Lowellian (reply) 18:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, User:Andrew Davidson makes a good point above about how a disambiguation page is better than a shifting redirect given that there are multiple reasonable choices. —Lowellian (reply) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a useful navigation tool, which is what a dab page is. WP:PTM is not a hard and fast rule, as attested to by the thousands of useful dab pages that don't strictly follow it. It's certainly not a reason to outright delete the page. — Gorthian (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why have guidelines at all then? The fact that thousands of dab pages need cleanup is beside the point. E.g. Schrodinger's cat is never called Schrodinger's dead cat. (At best, it would be a maybe dead, maybe alive cat.) The band isn't shortened to the Dead Cats AFAIK (unlike the Stones), nor is the book. Adjectives don't count either (show me where stock analysts talk about dead cats), which leaves just a microphone cover. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't violate the guideline. The guideline states "where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference", and dead cat can indeed refer to the various subjects. I've heard Schrödinger's cat referred to as the dead cat thought experiment plenty of times. Regarding "show me where stock analysts talk about dead cats", here are some examples: [4], [5], [6], [7]. —Lowellian (reply) 20:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A dab page at Xxy isn't there to provide a rigorous reference list of things known precisely as Xxy (for that kind of info belongs in articles and on wikidata), its purpose is to be an aid to navigation (and to make that navigation easier is what guidelines like WP:PTM exist for). If an entry could be what a user might reasonably be looking for, then it has a place on the dab page. Uanfala (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: No. Please get yourself familiar with WP:MOSDAB. If you disagree with what it says, please try to introduce the change you want into the guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Staszek Lem, is there a specific bit of MOS:DAB that goes against what I said? As for what can and can't go on a dab page, there is one section that maybe you would like to get yourself familiar with – MOS:DABSEEALSO. Uanfala (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uanfala "See also" is OK with me here. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.