Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brünnhilde (cat)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Brünnhilde (cat)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Brünnhilde (cat)}})

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (as creator): I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. It has non-trivial coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

: Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::It's in the [https://loc.gov/lcm/pdf/LCM_2020_1112.pdf Library of Congress Magazine] (November/December 2020), p. 11. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [https://boingboing.net/2023/01/05/this-incredible-newly-released-photo-of-brunnhilde-the-cat-now-belongs-to-the-world.html] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [https://kids.tpl.ca/fun-stuff/caption-this/95]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like [https://boingboing.net/2024/12/17/wild-photo-of-bigfoot-spotted-on-navajo-nation.html a] [https://boingboing.net/2024/12/19/can-californias-carnivorous-squirrels-be-stopped-it-is-too-soon-to-know.html bunch] [https://boingboing.net/2024/12/19/the-fart-piano-is-ridiculously-sophomoric-and-i-love-it.html of] [https://boingboing.net/2024/12/19/when-a-meme-gets-too-powerful-skibidi-toilet-is-now-in-fortnite.html random crap]. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:* I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by [https://www.ign.com/articles/skibidi-toilet-is-seemingly-coming-to-fortnite IGN], [https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/498226/skibidi-toilet-plungerman-fortnite Polygon], and [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/arts/fortnite-skibidi-toilet.html The New York Times], which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:*:...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:*::Boing Boing is not {{tq|known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:*:::By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. E_F⁵ 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. According to LOC curator Anne Wilkes Tucker, they looked at a million photos, isolated 4000 from that set, and then selected 440 for the exhibition. The process took several years, with the end result reflecting the visual history of America. This particular photo of a cat was chosen for its "whimsical" nature. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the exhibition in Los Angeles (Rogers, John, April 21, 2018, Library of Congress brings America to life in LA photo show, AP) the photo is important in American culture because it represents an early example of the "funny cat picture" from 1936. Photo curator Beverly Brannan told the AP: "Around the turn of the century, in the early 19-somethings, people liked to make pictures of cats and dogs, putting them at tea tables with dolls, putting clothes on them". Rogers writes that the photo reveals "that at least one aspect of photography hasn't changed much in 150 years". Steve Appleford covered the exhibition in a bit more detail for the Los Angeles Times, going into the backstory of the exhibition, why Tucker chose the cat photo (it made her laugh). A year later, Douglas Perry of The Oregonian included the image of Brünnhilde in his May 2019 article about early historical photos of cats in America, referring to it as part of a select set of "memorable American cat images". Mark Jenkins reviewed the exhibition for The Washington Post in April 2022 and highlighted the significance of the selection of these particular images, representing 440 of the total collection of 15 million in the LOC. Is the image notable outside this exhibition? Unlikely, but it achieved notability by being included in it and being described as an early, pre-internet example of what eventually became known as the Cats and the Internet phenomenon. What's unusual, is that we have no coverage of the early 20th century practice of dressing cats up in photos that Brannan told the AP about, and yet here it is and people want to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Both whimsical cat photos, and famous cats, are ubiquitous now and are unquestionably part of our online culture. Brünnhilde is an early example and is significant for that reason. Wikipedia features an article about the oldest surviving photograph even though it is not really significant except for that. Wikipedia also has an article for Morris the Cat, who is unexceptional apart from also being a famous cat. --WillisBlackburn (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• This is the sort of subject where I'm inclined to err on the side of weak keep, but a suggestion for {{u|Di (they-them)}}: whip up a quick article for Not an Ostrich, which is much more solidly notable, and merge this into a dedicated section of that article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus. This discussion seems more like opinions on the article subject than an assessment of existing sources. There was the possibility of a Merge mentioned, is there any additional support for that option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested seems reasonable, otherwise delete. The coverage is too weak for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Cats and the Internet. Not enough coverage for standalone article, and there will (presumably) never be more. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.