Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longcat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Longcat[edit]

I did all the strike out and disregard notices myself, not all votes that are disregarded are both struck and noted due to the huge job of trying to find and mark each one, All IP's are automtically disregarded under my criteria as well as any user with very few edits (I don't keep a hard rule to how many that is) as well as any vote that includes a personal attacks. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


*Keep Longcat deserves as much a page as any net meme, f nevada-tan or limecat belongs, so does limecat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.34.173 (talk • contribs) September 19, 2005

    • Above was user's second edit. User also vandalized the 4chan page [1] on 9/11/05, deleting all text and replacing with the word "pwned." | Keithlaw 13:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete. Funny, but no. I almost speedied it, but there's a chance its true. -Splashtalk 01:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is most definetly true. Longcat is our pride and joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.96.57 (talk • contribs) 01:24, September 15, 2005

*Keep This is not a joke. This is an infant of a wiki of a cliche spawned from the website 4chan.org. --Longcat 01:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

This vote was made by User Akor by changing his signature to try and double vote.NSR (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blatant lie. My only vote is below. Akor 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Longcat contribsoriginally posted the above comment, [2], then modified it, [3]. Then Longcat signed the post manually, but linked to User:Akor, by copying the text of Akor's signature from the edit immediately below Longcat's, and changing the name to Longcat but not the user page link [4]. Unravelling the truth behind the various edits to this debate has been a bit ridiculous, but know that every single edit is recorded, and the truth is open for all to view. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you had to take the trouble going through all the edits, I would have expected this from NSR who made that claim. However this obviously is an indicator for Longcat's unawareness of the signing function. Also I am sure this can be proven by logged IPs. Akor 23:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is a good example required to understand the creative process that's happening on imageboards such as Futaba_Channel or 4chan --Akor 01:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: User:Akor's first edits are to this discussion: contribs. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This does not make my argument invalid. Akor 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, votes from users whose first edits are after the beginning of a deletion discussion are generally disregarded. The consensus of this discussion thus far has been overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Very few legitimate support votes have been entered for this article. Ëvilphoenix Burn!

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • delete obviously as forumcruft. There have been a few 4chan articles on afd recently. 4chan users: wikipedia really isn't the right place for articles about memes/people/etc. from 4chan; they're going to get deleted. Why not set up your own 4chanwiki instead? I'm sure it would be quite popular. — brighterorange (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longcat extends beyong merely the realm of 4chan. Longcat is not exclusive to one site only. I truely believe that there should be an article explaining what Longcat is so that when they here mention of it, they can find information on the subject. It also helps to find information about the legend if one should ever need it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longcat (talk • contribs) 01:33, September 15, 2005
      • And a little known fact: Longcat is so long that he can dig from Ohio, through the center of the Earth, and just almost reach China, not quite but almost, by about 2 miles lacking. Longcat is, indeed, long. However, I don't think this would be relevant to the article, considering, as far as I know, cats do not burrow like dogs and rabbits do. --I am not good at running 09:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something tells me that this comment is a preview of the sort of silliness this article is likely to attract if kept. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs)
  • Delete Nothing worth mentioning in article. --rob 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like nonsense to me jmd 01:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please show your proof that this article is nothing but falsehoods. --Longcat
  • Delete Patent nonsense, and not even good patent nonsense at that. Even if this is a real meme from one small message board, Wikipedia's not the place for that stuff. | Keithlaw 02:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat is forever, and while has a convoluted background, does appear from time to time in unexpected places. I think people deserve to know of the longness.--IntensityBill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.54.55 (talk • contribs) 02:02, September 15, 2005 :vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete Nonsense/Hoax and Please do something with those socks give them an hour ban or something --Aranda56 02:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are speaking about something in which you know nothing about. This is not a hoax. We wouldn't waste our time on something as pointless as a hoax. If you actually read, you'll learn the truth of the subject -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longcat (talk • contribs) 02:06, September 15, 2005 diff.
    • Wikipedia:No personal attacks :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akor (talk • contribs) 02:13, September 15, 2005 diff
  • Delete. 4chan memes aren't encyclopedic, unless they have significant news coverage or pop culture impact. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Think of it - Wikipedia articles for every amusing photo every displayed on the internet. May be true (the photoshopped image of LongerCat will show up later to be deleted also, oops did I say that out loud?); but not encyclopedic. -WCFrancis 02:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please understand that this is not "every amusing photo every displayed on the internet", but and outstanding, if not _the_ creative offspring of 4chan. Consider that Giko, Shii-chan, and Mona, similiar work from 2ch each got their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akor (talk • contribs) 02:31, September 15, 2005 diff
  • Delete all catcruft. TheMadBaron 02:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this 4chan cruft which, being known to only ~1,000 people, has no place in an encyclopedia. Ashibaka (tock) 02:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)02:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I second Akor's motion. I figure if this Giko cat is notable, so is Longcat.Canar 02:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Longcat forever, as above, it shows the evolutionary process of image boards.Grimmie (preceding unsigned comment by 82.37.241.212 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 15 September 2005) :vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment: I don't know enough about this topic to vote. But perhaps it would be better added to an article about image boards? 68.20.28.234 03:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Wow, gg no re Wikiassholes. See if I ever donate again. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for everyone. Seriously, tell me what's wrong with this article. The text is fine, not great, but better than a lot of stuff here at the Wikipedia. If it were just the picture with "omfg lol roofleskates" for body text, then sure, I could understand candidacy for deletion. This is a fine article. To say Longcat isn't notable is extremely snobbish. Leave it be and go do something useful. (preceding unsigned comment by 66.74.195.104 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 September 2005)

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    • Delete. I agree that 4chan is the place for Longcat. It really originated there, unless I'm mistaken. The article isn't long enough or relevant enough to be anywhere but 4chan. However, please keep it there, rather than deleting it. Canar 05:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Waiter, there's a Longcat in my wikipedia! Tainting its internet purity! Getting in the way of my serious internet business! How can I be expected to endlessly refresh wikipedia articles for the next ten hours in case someone slips an errant figure in with a cat THAT LONG hanging around? It's worse than gays marrying! Bosphorus

    • Note: User:Bosphorus's first contribution is to this discussion: contribs. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since several "Keep" voters here can't seem to express themselves without making personal attacks on their opponents, let me ask this: Why is it so bloody important to all of you to have Longcat in Wikipedia? Don't any of you have anything better to do than come here and call other people names? | Keithlaw 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they don't. However, this does not alter the validity of Longcat. Canar 04:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • KEEP this has no need for removal KeiKusanagi 9:27PM 15s*ept
    • Note: User:KeiKusanagi Joined Wikipedia on September 12th, and has 31 edits. Kate's Report. Interpret suffrage at your discretion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • um, excuse me? i have more than the minimum of 25 before doing AfD.... AND the ENTIRE reason i joined wikipedia was to start and maintain SEX MACHINEGUNS which if you go and look, is an article with picture, more than a stub, and pretty damn good. imply that i'm a sock again and i might just leave.... i already don't like you elitist types. ugh. KeiKusanagi 07:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not trying to imply that you're a sock, I don't think that you are, only that you're new. There are some who prefer a higher margin of edits to determine suffrage, I'm not sure if that debate ever got settled or not. I'll have to check on that 25 votes thing, I couldnt remember what the stated minimum was when I posted the comment, thanks for reminding me. I'm simply trying to unravel a lot of confusing posts to this discussion, and anytime I have found a user that is not an established editor, I have noted that in this discussion. If you'll note a bit further down, I tagged one other editor similarly to how I tagged your vote, and that editor was voting Delete. I'm not trying to be partisan, only reflect the truth behind every vote to this discussion. In your case, you seem to have enough to count for a bare minimum. The closing admin may not take your edit count into consideration at all. I hope you don't decide to leave Wikipedia. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Vote included in the good faith that this user is not a sock, and no the debate about suffrage is still ongoing I believe. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *KeepI see nothing wrong with this entry. Certainly I've seen worse and less relevant kept here without controversy. A rewrite of all that pseudo-philosophical stuff, yes. Deletion? No. -Ganson316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.230.176 (talk • contribs) 04:52, September 15, 2005 diff. [reply]

Please point to the "worse and less relevant" articles, so we can list them, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As someone else pointed out, the articles about 2chan memes Giko, Shii-chan, and Mona would, by the logic of many Delete votes here, be even more irrelevant. Unlike Longcat, I haven't seen any evidence of those memes spreading beyond the borders of their original birthplace into any other forums; forumcruft indeed. --I am not good at running 16:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep long cat keeps me happy on the inside, long live long cat - emiechan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.184.13 (talk • contribs) 05:11, September 15, 2005

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Redirect to 4chan, as Longcat apparently originated from there. Also, although this has little to do with my argument, people should stop with the personal attacks and try to bring up valid points for keeping this article on its own. -Nameneko 05:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat has become an integral part of the 4Chan community, and seeing as to how 4Chan's /b/ has considerable weight in it's group of peers and counterparts, it's quite safe to say that Longcat will have notable long-term impact that will no doubt be seen beyond 4Chan. --BloodyEggroll 05:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • User's first edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need to start somewhere, don't you think? --BloodyEggroll 05:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generally, votes from users whose first contributions are to a AfD discussion that has started prior to the user joining are looked at as alleged sockpuppets, and either way, are generally not given as much weight as votes from established users. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete, nn forum denizen. No redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 4chan, where there is already quite a loooooooooooong enough paragraph about Longcat. (And honestly, the cat isn't all that long. If I hold either of my cats like that, both of them are just as long.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Longcat represents the potential within all of us. If we learn to stretch our minds as Longcat has stretched itself, we can enter a new age of enlightenment - CheeZ - Sept. 15, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.138.166 (talk • contribs) 06:25, September 15, 2005 diff :vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 06:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forumcruft. -- MCB 06:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Redirect to any relevant article about 4chan memes. This so-called "feline" seems to be somewhat of a lurking meme in certain anime and IDM forums. --I am not good at running 07:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 07:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Colinmac 08:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as forumcruft. And, seriously, my cat is way longer. Karol 09:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Internet Memes as such can be notable. Things like the Bonsai kitten, Dancing banana, or Limecat are really well known to a lot of people, meaning millions. Longcat does not seem to be so popular, which is the matter of this debate, I guess. Karol 07:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We've gotta save this article because our petty forum is the most important thing on earth! Yeah, anime forum is the centre of my world, let's all spam keep. Come on, faster, if this article gets deleted, it'll make 4chan look like a bunch of absolute losers! Go back to your forum. - Hahnchen 14:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forumcruft. Usrnme h8er 14:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make the sockpuppets go to a remote island and give themselves a good talking to. The JPS 14:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close the sock drawer, fast. They're spilling out all over the place. Friday (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... three delete votes within a 10 minute period. Very curious indeed :) I bet the Keep voters aren't the only sock users around here. 4chan, after all, does have its rivals. By the way, how's Lowtax doing these days? --I am not good at running 16:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no, wait! I have seen the genius of Longcat! Deleeeeeeeeeeeeeete. Vizjim 15:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmmmm... Longcat, side order of fries, mayo, deleteous! Alf melmac 15:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So rather than us being people, we are merely thrown int oa class called "sockpuppets"? Is our opinion of less value than the majority of wikipedia (aka elitest bores)? Why not allow the minority to participate? Why squelch us just because we aren't as WIKI-ELITE as you? -eepberries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.124.124 (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 15, 2005
    • The ability to vote in AfD discussions is given to Wikipedia users in good standing. Anonymous IP's votes are not counted, and new users whose first edits are to deletion discussions are generally disregarded as well. Please see the Articles for Deletion page for more information. If you would like to join Wikipedia and begin to contribute meaningfully to the project, we would welcome your participation in RfA discussion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, are all of you like this? I can't believe I donated to this project. Longcat is notable. How are memes not encyclopedic? This is completely ridiculous. I'm very disappointed. 4chan and /b/ in particular are right up there with the likes of Genmay and Something Awful -- notable. If memes don't belong in the Wiki, then what exactly is Category:Internet_memes supposed to be? If anything, tracking and documenting memes should be one place the Wiki excels in particular over other encyclopediae. If you were unfamiliar with Longcat (as most of you seem to have been! Guess what, you'd still be unfamiliar with Longcat if it weren't for this Wiki article) and wanted to learn about it, where's the first place you would look? That's right: the Wikipedia. Stop being such elitist pinheads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.142.229 (talk • contribs) 22:23, September 15, 2005
        • Yes, we generally are all like this. We are interested in facts, and articles of encyclopedic interest. There is disagreement on whether this article is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That is why we have the current deletion process in place for Wikipedia. Our goal is to build consensus on what should be done with questionable articles. If you'd care to look around at some of the other articles being discussed, you'll note that some will probably be deleted, while some will be kept. It's all part of the process. If you want to voice your opinion, you're welcome to, but be aware that we frequently delete articles about various internet forums, and are frequently flooded with anonymous edits from members of that forum seeking to keep the article. That certainly seems to be the case here. We're not really elitist, anyone can get a username, anyone with a username can vote, and votes from established users are considered, no matter what side of a discussion they are on. Votes from anonymous users are not. That is longstanding Wikipedia policy. If you feel there are holes in Wikipedia's coverage of Internet phenomena, I would encourage you to join the site and participate in the process of building an encyclopedia. However, some of the behavior that has been seen in this discussion, such as engaging in sockpuppetry, is quite frowned upon. As far as 4chan, 4chan does have an article, but this discussion is not over that article. Personally, I've heard of Something Awful, but not 4chan. But that is not what this discussion is about, this discussion is about whether Longcat is notable enough for it's own article. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Memes are not encyclopedic. Bikeable 16:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just heavily re-factored the discussion, and rolled over some changes. I'll try to make sure nothing gets left out. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actively supported but still irrelevant forumcruft Ziggurat 23:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect and merge with the 4chan article, it is relivent but not in it's own right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.194.29 (talk • contribs) 00:14, September 16, 2005
  • Delete - Non-encyclopaedic --Camw 01:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Reinyday, 06:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being an irrelevant and stupid meme. The cat's not even particularly long. He's maybe a bit larger than your average cat. Tuf-Kat 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Non-encyclopaedic. (Hm, instead of writing "delete" once, I could create lots of sock puppets shouting "keep", this might have the same effect... :-) -- Aleph4 09:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if it's any consolation I will say that the cat is kinda funny looking. Everyking 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a major meme/internet phenomenon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and take the photoshopped Longcat Ness Monster pic with it. DS 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article alongside Limecat and others...  Grue  17:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Even though I have an incredibly low chance of being accounted for in this vote, I would like to offer my vote anyway as well as propose a topic for discussion. Why, exactly, are anonymous contributors to this site held in such low regard? Does one's opinion become effectively null when its source is unknown? Whatever happened to the concept of judging one's opinions on their own merit rather than the eminence of the name of the one who speaks? It seems a bit counterintuitive to me to have anonymous posters able to speak their mind freely and yet be completely disregarded. Why are the posters here so dead-set on furthering the perceived values of their internet identities, which at their very core are indeed effectively anonymous? Anonymous-san 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • User's third edit. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous contributions are welcome at Wikipedia, but anonymous users are just as likely yo have their contributions to articles edited as regular users. That's the nature of a wiki. Our policy is to allow established Wikipedia users to vote. Why? Because we are trying to establish a consensus, and we want each person to be able to express their opinion. We do not want that distorted by one person trying to appear as several people. If we allow anonymous votes, what is to stop someone from posting multiple votes from different IP addresses? We have no way at all of trying to ascertain if ten anonymous votes are posted by ten people, or two. So, if you want to vote in RfA discussions, feel free, but you will need to have a username at Wikipedia, and not merely be coming in because of one particular article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:41, 21 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Longcat&oldid=1171939195"