Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttered cat paradox (2nd nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Buttered cat paradox

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Buttered cat paradox
• Articles for deletion/Buttered cat paradox (2nd nomination)

Buttered cat paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is uncyclopedic [sic]. The only thing missing is this animated GIF. The page should be deleted or moved to WP:BJAODN. It's funny, but it's an old joke. We don't need an article on "percatual motion" or "practical cat-toast motors." Pixelface 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Send to WP:BJAODN but cannot be considered as a regular article. Cute, though. OfficeGirl 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • BJAODN got axed. Apparently the memo didn't get circulated yet (I was surprised). --UsaSatsui 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if an hoax-y idea receives enough mainstream coverage (which I think this has), it can become notable. And as the nom shows, it's also verifiable (the google book seems to quote the New Scientist for ex.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I should also mention that the cat is not buttered, it is the toast that is buttered, so the article title is incorrect. --Pixelface 02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very notable paradox. Lugnuts 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but I have a better diagram. --Candy-Panda 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC) File:Cat toast swirl.gif
• Keep Don't the references in the article alone prove that it's a notable concept in popular culture. I think people are confusing notability with seriousness of a topic. Key to the city 09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The way the 'loophole theories' section is written, doesn't make it clear enough that the subject is not scientific though. That needs to be removed or changed. Key to the city 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a notable concept. JIP | Talk 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The 1996 article in New Scientist shows that this is a somewhat popular joke. Still, I'd rather see it mentioned in a half sentence in perpetual motion or something like Science humour. The current section "Thought experiments" also is somewhat confusing (is there some actual thought experiment going on like with Schroedinger's cat, or is this just elaborating the joke?) but I don't think that could be much improved, so nothing remains to write an encyclopedic article. --Allefant 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable idea with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This joke has definitely become a well-known part of our culture. I think it could use some editing, however, particularly to merge the "Thought experiment" section with the rest of the article. Ariah 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are enough sources to establish its reliability. Quidam65 19:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But it doesn't work all that well. The cat gets sick after a minute or two, creating an awful mess. Banno 08:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bfigura, Key to the city etc. -- Roleplayer 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This one has been around, as evidenced by the sources. Just because it's a joke doesn't mean it's not "worthy". I think it deserves mention that the premise is flawed, though. MythBusters proved toast doesn't always land butter side down, and I've proven cats don't always land on their feet (though that last part is WP:OR and not acceptable for the article). --UsaSatsui 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Actually it was on QI once that cats that fall from between the 5th and 7th storey of a building are more likely to die from the fall than cats that fall from above or below that height. That would suggest that it's not OR, though where one would start to look for that research I haven't the foggiest. I tried attaching some buttered bread to the back of my own cat, until he tried attaching his claws to my face. -- Roleplayer 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, but the question is not whether or not a cat could survive such a fall. It's whether or not they land on their feet. --UsaSatsui 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No reason to delete. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What actually happens is that the cat eats the toast. Sam Blacketer 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. No comment. --Kizor 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep AND Post in BJAODN. It's actually referenced. Countless articles with no references. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Science shall trump all, as they say. And it's clearly notable if nothing else. • Lawrence Cohen 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for a non-frivolous reason: it's a very simple example of a paradox that people can understand, and the other paradox articles go into mathematics and formal logic to the point where a lot of them are confusing and marked as too technical. Kuronue | Talk 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. I also heard the term as "buttered cats" circa 1996. - Dean Wormer 03:25, 8 September 2007 (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.