Deletion of Orville (cat)

Comment: Lots of international news coverage, guessing now if it's a news spike is . Deleting because |it offends our sensibilities makes Wikipedia:Systemic bias worse. Using dead pets is nothing new for Dutch "artists." http://www.gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/technology/gadgetbox/dead-cat-copter-art-or-macabre-pet-send-812966
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per . This story is a Wikipedia:Recentism#News spikes|news spike if the is still around in a year then the article can be restored and enhanced. It can also be moved to Wikinews if it isn't there already
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: per NJ Wine's discussion of .  If this particular piece of art winds up having actual lasting notability, then I would see nothing wrong with recreating this article then.  At the moment, however, the article's sources are nothing but a bunch of "interesting tidbits of the day" type news coverage, with nothing to show any lasting notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTS)

Comment: I saw coverage of this in a newspaper in London the other day and thought it was a good story.  As this is being presented as a work of art, it seems quite comparable with The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living - the notorious work of Damien Hirst.  See also cat organ - a medieval equivalent which has lasted quite well.  People may well |dislike such stuff but it is our |policy not to delete for this reason.   Note also that  is irrelevant because this is an ''objet d'art'' not an event.  An event would be something like Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II or Transit of Venus, 2012 - occasions and incidents which are all over our front page, just like they are every day
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:CENSOR||WP:EVENT)

Comment: as  and . Wikipedia isn't the place for every internet meme that catches a brief moment of notoriety
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: this falls under , Wikipedia doesn't catalog every silly stunt someone does
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Guessing" now that this is a news spike has nothing to do with , which is a policy that governs article space content, not Wiki space argument :). One thing that is certainly true is that Wikipedia is |not the news, and it is not speculation to note that coverage on this is all very |recent. It is as such impossible to gauge whether it truly constitutes long-term notability or a short-term spike in the news over a considerable curiosity. Obviously, recreate this if it's still generating interest over time, but until such point that that can be established this is a one-off news story about a one-off event/happening/curiosity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM)