Deletion of List of cats with fraudulent diplomas

Comment: Plenty of  satisfy |notability guidelines. The subject is weird indeed, but no guideline or policy reason exists to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I have to vote for  on this one. The title is just so ridiculously funny, it charmed the hell out of me, and I would consider it a loss to the encyclopedia if it were deleted. On policy grounds I could point to the article's length and say that it is worthy of a separate article, as part of a "series" with Diploma mill
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I see no convincing arguments to delete. It meets ,  and .  does not apply since it doesn't "advance a position"; it's simply a list. Merging it with the dogs might be a good idea though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:SYN)

Comment: to Diploma mills in the United States or to Diploma mill. Wikipedia is  for indiscriminate information. The buying of diplomas for cats as a demonstration of the lack of legitimacy of the diploma mills is already covered in the redirect target article. No sources are cited showing that the topic of "cats with fake diplomas" or "goldfish with diplomas" or "dogs with diplomas" etc is notable in itself, so the article fails |notability. Some of the animals listed doid not receive diplomas, but only memberships in some association. May violate 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: cause . Plus, I believe this meets our notability and sourcing guidelines. Maybe it should be expanded to List of domestic animals with diplomas, or similar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Garbage deletion rationale by nominator JBSupreme.  and  are not valid rationales to nominate this article for deletion in the least. The template added by Edgarde in an effort to invalidate all keep votes is absolutely petty. The arguments to keep this article are sound, and no template will fool any administrator with the least bit of competency. The article is well sourced and clearly notable, and if someone gets butthurt and doesn't like it, that's just too damn bad
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: while perhaps a  problem, each instance seems properly referenced.  Also, this article is getting lots of notice outside wikipedia (http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/a1fpc/list_of_cats_with_fraudulent_diplomas/, http://chuckpalahniuk.net/forum/1000026/list-of-cats-with-fraudulent-diplomas, http://www.lemmingtrail.com/mb/223313/, http://i.justrealized.com/2009/11/06/list-of-cats-with-fraudulent-diplomas/, http://ilovewikipedia.tumblr.com/post/234536689/list-of-cats-with-fraudulent-diplomas, http://ragingsquism.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/list-of-cats-with-fraudulent-diplomas/), so why get everyone upset about it by deleting a verifiable list.  Once again wikipedia randomly observes something over time (the use of cats to ferret out diploma mills) and cements the existence of it of a concept (the article was originally titled as Colby Nolan when created in December 2004, and was only renamed about 10 days ago).  By the way, in searching the subject, I ran across the story of Tobias F. (for Feline) Schaeffer and added it to the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: an informative and encyclopedic article on a notable subject. This nomination reeks of . fucking edit conflict
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Merging into diploma mill is a very bad idea, since it isn't notable in regard to exposing diploma mills; if anything, it should be merged into list of cats (see the List_of_dogs#War_dogs|list of dogs involved in war for a corresponding example). However, |Wikipedia is not paper; we definitely have the space and resources to keep this article around. Merging with list of cats, an article which is already disorganized and filled with trivia, would ruin a good article (this one) and make a bad article (the list of cats) worse. Keeping it as its own article will make it easier to attract editors to watch this article and make sure it maintains its current high standard. This article is interesting and informative, has a number of well-researched examples, and will be interesting reading for fans of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia in particular. I strongly vote we keep this article around
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)