Cheshire Cat in popular culture

Cheshire Cat in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of unassociated topics, Wikipedia is not for original research and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a collection of trivia tied together by the most tenuous of connections, the simple inclusion of the words "Chesire cat" or some variation ("chessy cat," "cheshire smile," in some instances just "Chesire" or "chessy") along with things that in the unsourced opinion of whatever editor happened to spot them reminded the editor in some way of the Cheshire Cat. This was apparently originally split off from the main article but better here than there is not a valid answer to trivia in the main article. This was AFDed about ten months ago and closed no consensus, largely it seems on the poetics of one editor who suggested that the article be treated with "TLC" to "extract what does have merit." Sadly, no editor has taken up that suggestion and it appears that the only items of merit, its Disney adaptation, is already in the main article. I am sympathetic to editors who feel they must constantly battle fellow editors who want to include every trivial mention of everything and I fight those battles too. But garbage dump articles like this are not the way to win those battles. Otto4711 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article not indiscriminate, not a directory and not original research. All we have here is WP:NOEFFORT which is no reason to delete. To demonstrate that the article can indeed be improved, I picked a detail (the image on LSD tabs) and was soon able to find multiple reliable sources and so have cited one. Furthermore, deleting this article would just push the material back into the main article - pointless churning. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is thorouhly indiscriminate, as it seeks to collect every instance of any reference, however oblique, to "Cheshire Cat." To select a few examples more-or-less at random, what is the encyclopedic relationship between Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell, included because in one sentence of a three-season television series he uses the words "Cheshire Cat," MapleStory, which is included because of some non-player character named Fancy, and My Neighbor Totoro, which includes a character called Catbus who can disappear and reappear? For that matter, how is the inclusion of My Neighbor Totoro on the basis of Catbus, which the including editor listed on the basis of his supposed "striking resemblance" to the Cheshire Cat, not original research? It falls under the first definition of "directory," as it is a list of loosely associated topics, connected by nothing but a single mention or implication or alleged "striking resemblance" of something in it to the Cheshire Cat. Some of this garbage will probably end up in the main article, which means that editors need to be vigilant about removing it when it appears instead of foisting their problem off on someone else. As already noted, it will end up back in the main article is not a valid argument. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked out your three examples. Bagwell and Catbus stand up and I have cited accordingly. The Maple Story entry is less clear. I have the impression that there's something to it but the entry is obscure and I have found no good sources. So I just took that entry out - easy. So it goes - we check out the entries and improve them or remove them as appropriate. And as I look through the sources, I notice a huge amount of material out there which might support more articles. This cat is clearly highly influential and so we should give it good coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Look. I am not saying that it can't be sourced that T-Bag said "Cheshire Cat" one time in three seasons of Prison Break. What I am saying is that the fact that he did does not mean that there is an encyclopedic relationship between the fact that he said "Cheshire Cat" and a Japanese animated cat that's the size of a bus and disappears and reappears. This article is not an encyclopedic examination of the cultural effect of the Cheshire Cat. It is a list of every random thing in which the words "Cheshire Cat" or some variant are spoken or used ever. You can waste your time sourcing these bits of useless junk if you want, but even if you sourced every single one of them it's still at the end of the day just going to be an indiscriminate collection of trivia. "This one time this guy said 'Cheshire Cat' in a movie and this other time this band sang 'Cheshire smile' in a song" is not the basis for an encyclopedic article. Look at Champagne in popular culture as an example of an actual decent "...in popular culture" article. See how there are actual sources that talk about the impact of champagne in popular culture, and of popular culture on champagne? See how it's not a list of every single time someone sang "champagne" in a song or drank a champagne toast on a TV show? See how there are no such sources regarding the Cheshire Cat? Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are mistaken. In no case, I have cited the original works which features the Cheshire Cat. All citations reference secondary sources which discuss in some fashion the relationship of the Cat to the work in question. They are thus quite proper sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage of "Cheshire Cat" in its entirety from your T-Bag source: "T-Bag is probably the best - which is to say the worst - thing in Prison Break, so I was disconcerted to notice last night that he couldn't pronounce "Cheshire cat". Filtered through T-Bag, it came out as "Cashire cat". A verbally challenged villain is quite endearing." The entire coverage of the CC on LSD tabs from your source: "I heard that there was a type of LSD stamped with the Cheshire cat." The entirety of the coverage from your source for Buscat: unknown, because Google books allows only a snippet view which includes nothing on Buscat or the CC. The Start Trek mention? "Sourced" by a link which does not allow the viewing of the relevant page. None of these sources indicate that any of the items are in any way tied to each other beyond someone happening to have said "Cheshire Cat" or something similar. Not a word indicating that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is an encyclopedic topic or that these examples are anything other than an index of passing mentions. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Cheshire cat. The article seems neither indiscriminate nor original research. But neither it or its parent article are particularly long as it is, so it might just as well be merged. JIP | Talk 18:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland - there is no need for this to be it's own article --T-rex 18:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per What Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Article is actively being revised and is a legitimate search term with clear reader interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "What Wikipedia is" is a collection of essays on your user page, which do not address the policy issues and have no force. The Five Pillars specifically state that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that there is to be no original research, so they actually support deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a collection of essays that interpret the policies and therefore have force. This article, which is unoriginal research, is a discriminate one with clear parameters as indicated by its title and organization and does contain references, which is why the policies actually support keeping it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, sorry, essays do not have any force, which is why every essay is tagged at the top with "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And you really ought to know by now, after how many years of your participating in these discussions, that "sourced" does not automatically equal encyclopedic. We delete articles every day that are impeccably sourced because they violate policies and guidelines. The title does not set a clear parameter, as is obvious by the scattershot inclusion of every possible mention of the term, and the fact that the article is divided into sections means absolutely nothing in regards to its indiscriminateness. I could have List of people named John who live in the United States and organize them alphabetically by last name. That sets a clearer inclusion criterion than the title of this article and is also well-organized. Doesn't make it any less indiscriminate. You have not, as you never do in these discussions, addressed the actual policy issues in any fashion other than for all intents and purposes going "no it isn't, no it isn't no it isn't." Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have provided no actual policy based reasons for deletion, however, as you never do in these discussions, so how can I respond to what's not there? If you think there is a matter of sourcing or about scholarly interests in the topic at hand, then please read such sources as "Popular Culture in Political Cartoons: Analyzing Cartoonist Approaches," which discuss for example the use of "John Edwards as the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland in political cartoons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOT is bedrock policy, drawn from your beloved Five Pillars, so this claim that I have provided no policy-based arguments is both false and baffling. Your link is to an abstract and it does not indicate that the item in question discusses "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" to any significance and thus is not a reliable source. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the article passes it by being consistent with what Wikipedia is and is covered by reliable sources per any reasonable definition of the phrase. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto's repeated claims that the article is indiscriminate seem quite fraudulent. This article was spun off from the main article Cheshire Cat and this is the clear common topic for all this material. The article does not resemble any of the examples of indiscriminate info given by the WP:IINFO policy. The actual case against the article is most clearly stated in the article Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles but we see that this is an essay and so is inadequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your assumption of good faith and civility in for all intents and purposes calling me a liar. The fact that this garbage was split off from the main article is irrelevant to whether it should be kept. You know as well as I do, or you should because you've been told it enough times, that the listed items at WP:IINFO are not an exhaustive list of what can be indiscriminate, and even if it were, the article still fails multiple other elements of Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen too many hand-waving references to policy today to be tolerant of such misrepresentation. The topic of this article is clear and precise - the very opposite of indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable and will/has been referenced in indep sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cite the reliable sources, meaning sources that have given significant coverage to the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture," that you claim establish the notability of this article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, this article violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:List, and borders original research by attempting to tie together unconnected incidents under the one title. The article does not attempt to be anything more than an index for its subject rather than an article about it, violating Wikipedia's policy on directories. It could be original research if it found to be finding a connection rather than reflecting one. doktorb _words^deeds 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article passes Wikipedia:Lists by being discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any interesting information can (and should) be in the Cheshire Cat article. The "sources" provided are of instances of the Cheshire Cat appearing (and disappearing) in various media, including the original story. These instances are not about the "Cheshire Cat in popular culture", so the article is currently unsourced. The list is indiscriminate, as it includes extremely marginal cases. The article is original research. I would expect an article on something in popular culture to discuss what it represents, why it resonates with people, and how it has outgrown its creator. This article has none of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if we do that then we would merge and redirect without deleting per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't understand why you have this attachment, or as the Buddhists call it, Taṇhā, to the edit histories. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see GFDL#Conditions. A cut/paste copy which breaks the contribution history breaks the license agreement. This is one reason why deletion is tightly controlled and should be used lightly. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But likewise when we have an article like this were deletion is clearly preferable, the edit history matters very little. This article does not bind together information, it attempts to prove a link; a subtle but clear difference. Itss deletion (and that of the edit history) is merely a consequence of it failing many policies, as already suggested elsewhere within this discussion. doktorb _words^deeds 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position. While there are clearly numerous instances of a Cheshire Cat appearing in a variety of locations, there is no indication that there is a single reliable source that has yet discussed "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as a whole. --Allen3 ^talk 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the position advanced or conclusion reached by this article which is improper synthesis? All the article seems to be asserting is that the Cheshire cat has been referenced in the listed works. And it seems that you agree youself that this is so. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The theory being advanced is that these individual instances in various films, books, and other locations are also instances of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture". Unless you are arguing that everything ever mentioned in any book, film, song, or other location is automatically elevated to being a significant instance of said object in popular culture, this is just an unbounded list of disconnected instances. Just because a similar idea appears in different locations does not mean that these locations are automatically linked. --Allen3 ^talk 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You say unbounded list of disconnected instances like you're quoting something but when we follow the blue link, we just find WP:IINFO which does not say this. This inference is an improper synthesis. It seems doubly flawed in that the list is both connected and bounded. It is connected by the Cheshire Cat and bounded by the scope of Popular culture and so excludes the numerous references to the Cheshire Cat in science, say. Your rationale is like the Cheshire Cat - you have the frown but no body. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present this article composed of nothing but a long list of examples faces one of three fates:

1. The unsourced assertion that these examples are connected is accepted and this article is deleted as synthetic original research.
2. The unsourced assertion that these examples are connected is rejected and this article is deleted as an indiscriminate collection of information.
3. Reliable sources are provided showing that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a concept that has previously been published outside of Wikipedia.

I am willing to accept any of these three outcomes. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence places the burden of providing needed sources onto those wishing to keep the article. If you truly wish to save the article I would suggest that directing your efforts toward locating the needed sources. --Allen3 ^talk 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already been looking through the sources and have cited some. The main difficulty is that there are hundreds of sources containing millions of words. I fail to see any reason for haste. The only reason we're here is that Otto is scratching an itch. If the article is not retained in its current form then the content will just go back to the main Cheshire Cat article (where I now have much more to add). This activity is not productive and per WP:IAR should be terminated forthwith so that we use our time here better. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the reason we are here is because in the course of trying to improve Wikipedia by better organizing and naming a category structure I stumbled across this policy-violating article. That you feel the rude and unfounded need to reduce my actions here to "scratching an itch" speaks far more of you than it does of me in your complete and utter failure to assume good faith on my part and also speaks to the fundamental weakness of your position. Address the nomination, not the nominator. And again, if you think this stuff doesn't belong in the main article, then watchlist the main article and remove it if it gets added. That someone might litter the main article is not an excuse for building a garbage dump. Otto4711 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The incident which brought you here also seems to be disruptive. Proposing that a category be renamed when you don't have a better alternative in mind seems to be similar unproductive churning. Such acivity does not help us improve the encyclopedia - it diverts us into empty discussion and conflict instead. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that you would think that bringing a category with an ambiguous name to the attention of the community in the hope of building a consensus as to what the best name for the category would be is "disruptive" demonstrates amply that you have no idea how CFD works and little idea how the consensus-building process of Wikipedia as a whole functions. Anyone looking at that CFD who isn't viewing it as an opportunity to lob another personal attack against me should be able to figure out that it is generating discussion about the best rename, which is one of the functions of Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion. The only one trying to turn Wikipedia into a battleground here is you, through your incivility, failure to assume good faith and your personal dislike of my point of view. Otto4711 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your personal dislike of "in popular culture" article is not a valid reason to delete them and calling those you disagre with "disruptive" or "incivil" does not advance a discussion about content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your personal love of hoarding trivia is not a valid reason to keep them. You love trivia so much, find or start up a Trivipedia and have at it. Additionally, you are misrepresenting my position regardling IPC articles. I do not categorically dislike IPC articles. Inded, I have linked in this very discussion an example of an IPC culture of which I not only approve, I !voted to keep when it was up for AFD. What I dislike is garbage dumps of trivia masquearading as articles that get created because editors can't be arsed to delete it and instead split it off from a main article and abandon it. I would appreciate in future if you are going to ascribe beliefs to me that you ascribe beliefs that I actually hold. I do thank you for pointing out that calling people with whom you disagree "disruptive" is bad form and I hope Colonel Warden, the only one in this discussion who has called anyone disruptive, will heed your words. As for calling out incivility, you don't seem to have a problem with it when it suits your purposes (*cough*DRV yesterday*cough*) so your hand-wringing over such charges here is...puzzling. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need when Wikipedia already is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs per its First pillar. If you believe these articles have potential, then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Yes, I don't mind calling people out for it when their only comment in a discussion is in effect to be incivil and not comment on the article under discussion, whereas here, Colonel Warden has in fact commented on the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what your first sentence means. As for the second, I think I've made it quite clear that I don't believe this article has potential. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For the first sentence, you said that the article should be in a trivia encylopedia, which is why I'm saying that Wikipedia, as an combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs can include what some deem trivia as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Trivia sections are heavily frowned upon and usually tagged with notices to either integrate the trivia into the main text or delete it. An article composed entirely of trivia, as this one is, has no main text into which it can be integrated. Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I still consider Otto's actions disruptive. In this case, it would have a lot simpler to propose a merger of the article back into the main article from which it was spun-off. Or to have sought to improve the article. But instead of discussing the matter on the talk pages for the articles in question, Otto rushes straight here with a repeat AFD and we get all this unnecessary drama. As for the language used, we should note that Otto starts this AFD with a polemic which talks of "battling" other editors whose work is described as "garbage". Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (reset indent) I consider repeated false accusations of "disruption" to be an unprincipled attack by one editor on another. If you truly believe that an AFD nomination 10 months after a no consensus close and no improvement to the article is "disruption" then I suggest you report me at WP:ANI instead of going on about it here in an attempt to sway the nomination. A merger is not appropriate, because the information is unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong in its own article and it doesn't belong in the main article. Since a merger is inappropriate, discussing a merger on the talk pages is pointless. There is nothing wrong with what I have done precedurally either here or at the CFD I linked and it's ridiculous that you would try to claim otherwise. And yes, I did use the word "battling." Do a search of some similar AFDs. You'll see that I'm far from the first person to use such language. Indeed, in these AFDs there is generally at least one editor whose !vote is "whatever happens, do not merge" precisely because they feel like they're in a battle with the people who want to include every little "Gus saw a woodchuck" reference to everything regardless of how trivial it is or how little it has to do with the topic of the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We have already agreed in principle that such information can be encyclopedic thanks to your example of Champagne. The rest is then a matter of content editing to select and source the detailed content so as to improve the article per WP:IMPERFECT. You have provided no evidence to show that this cannot be done in this case and have provided evidence by a good example that it may be. If you wish to exterminate a particular woodchuck then you can edit the article to remove it, as I have done. Wikipedia is not Caddyshack. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What I have agreed is that such material may be encyclopedic in the presence of reliable sources that discuss substantively the concept of "Foo in popular culture." I have not and do not agree that a list of every mention of Foo makes for an article. And Caddyshack featured a gopher, not a woodchuck. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR—a collection of unassociated references and (often debatable) allusions does not an encyclopedia article make. Deor (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The are associated references that make an wikipedic article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not associated with one another any more than a collection of quotations about the same topic (specifically discouraged in WP:NOTDIR) are. Deor (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are only about a the Cheshire Cat and only about it in popular culture; the main concern in any event is the topic and if you're concerned about the way the article looks then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, because the topic does have potential per such sources as the one about its use in political cartoons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although an intelligent section could be written in the Cheshire Cat article about persons inspired by Lewis Carroll, this is essentially a scorecard of every known mention of the phrase "Cheshire cat" in a film, book or song. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were that possible, then the way to go would be to merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is absolutely no reason to list every minor use of the character in every single piece of media. The main article should have a brief two or three paragraph section that sums up all of that kind of information instead. TTN (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of reasons to do so, otherwise editors would not have created such an article or continue to defend it here. If you think it could be used elsewhere, then we would merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They are some good examples of the use of Cheshire Cat in popular culture but the majority is plot observations in films, tv series, etc. Just add a paragraph in Cheshire Cat with 2-3 good examples. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do that, then we should merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the material was originally split from the lead article then it is in that article's history already. There is no need for a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's obviously a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a legitimate search term. Anyone interested in the Cheshire Cat is going to search for "Cheshire Cat". Get real. Otto4711 (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Be considerate to your fellow editors and readers. When this many editors work on an article in good faith and thousands read it every month, it is a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have no idea how any of those readers found the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that it is first on Google hits, you'd have to think that's how some found it. If you want to get a better sense, then why not ask all those who worked on it on their userpages, notify them of this AfD, and see what they have to say? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that this is the first article on Google, that would seem quite a strong indicator that there is little or no independent reliable sourcing for the topic, indicating that the topic is not notable. The article's position on Google, however, sheds no light on how people found the article by searching Wikipedia or indeed if people found the article searching through Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Colonel Warden, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Casliber and those whose keeps have vanished with the termination of the earlier AfD. Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture seems to provide references for this remarkable cat's further exploits.John Z (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]