Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 unfortunately, no consensus. --Coredesat 07:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)[edit]

Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2nd nom. Unimaginable WP:COI [1] by an Single-purpose account. We cannot reward this. This is a trivial, trivial cow, she don't have a shred of notability outside a very small area. Say no to cow-promotion! - crz crztalk 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1st AfD for Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow ending November 16, 2006) --Oakshade 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest a redirect to CowParade, and add this cow to the cow list on that article. Tubezone 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Featured in MSM here although I wonder if the fact that the Cow has an entry in Wikipedia itself means anything -- Tawker 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Odd Christmas decorations are not notable even if they are written about in a local newspaper. This is nothing more than self promotion on the part of the author. If I dress my garden gnome up and the local newspaper notices, that doesn't make it notable. pschemp | talk 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not made clear by the nom and previous comments, the owner of Gladys (Jim Lebinski) is the one who is the main contributor to the wiki article (User:James.lebinski), as evidenced by the recent news article. The wiki article has existed for less than 3 weeks. It survived the previous AfD after the author was encouraged to make it more encyclopedic, but as a result the article is now bogged down in minutiae. Katr67 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In light of my previous comment, and per the nom, although I have a soft spot for plastic cows, the mention of the Wikipedia article in the local paper makes me agree this is a serious conflict of interest. Katr67 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the first AFD I'm wondering if people realize that verifiability is not actually a criteria for keeping an article. Lots of non-notable things can be verified but that doesn't make them worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Its got to be notable first. pschemp | talk 04:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - "Strong" because the 1st AfD, which was decidedly "Keep," ended on November 16th and this is way too short of time to elapse for a 2nd nomination. Regular keep because WP:Verification is established. Interesting/Trivial items are allowed. The coverage is not trivial (i.e. not a directory listing, a mention or store hours), even though the subject is. --Oakshade 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment regarding the nom's added comment of this article being created by a SPA - First of all, OH REALLY? Thanks for the news, Woodward or Bernstien! Secondly, I've read WP:SPA and I really can't find any WP policy that prohibits or even dissuades members from solely creating and then focusing on one article. It even states, "There is, of course, nothing wrong with single purpose accounts." --Oakshade 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. Verifyability in and of itself is *not* a reason to keep an article. Just because a reporter writes an article that verifies your buttocks are hairy and do indeed exist does not make them worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Trivial subject = not notable. "The opposite exists also: things that are interesting without being really important. For example, the Guinness Book of World Records contains, apart from many world records that are "important", several "trivia" world records. So wikipedia will not mention each and every "world record" that is interesting, but only those that are also important." How is this cow important? Don't forget the conflict of interest either, or do you think that's a good thing? pschemp | talk 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, agree it's WP:TRIVIA and you seem to agree it's verfied (thanks for the WP:UNCIVIL reference to my buttucks). For conflict of interest, at least five non-creator non-anon editors worked on this article since it's creation a few weeks ago. Now that that's said, pschemp, keep it civil --Oakshade 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a generic your. Nothing to do with your personal buttocks. Simply an example to point out ridiculousness. It wasn't uncivil at all. If I had meant it to be uncivil I would have said something like, "Now lets take the example of Oakshade's hairy ass...but I didn't because that would be uncivil. pschemp | talk 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trivial subject is not the same as not notable. They can be. What you should've said was Trivial subject != notable (Trivial subject does not equal notable). - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It doesn't appear to me as if anything about the article's changed. That leaves the COI issue. COI is not necessarily a reason for deletion, though. Verifiability, NPOV/encyclopedic tone, and "no original research" are all met. The article could probably use some cleanup, but that's also not a reason for deletion. That leaves self-promotion. I notice that the author of the article the nominator of this AfD cited is also the author of one of the article's sources, though, and that that earlier article was written in 2003, meaning this author knew of the piece and its artist long before the article existed. It seems possible to me that Mr. Spinelli took an interest on his own, so I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt in this case. I also think it's a bit soon to renominate the article, but I suppose the new information is a decent reason. Shimeru 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well researched, well documented article on a road side folk art attraction. New Jersey has its Lucy the Elephant and there is Elsie the Cow, an ad campaign. I disagree that triviality is equal to non-notability. The "hairy ass" analogy doesn't fit. There is no more information beyond the single sentence about a "hairy ass" but this article is more than a single sentence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEep if only because if you can't wait at least a month before resubmitting an AfD, I can't believe you are making this proposal fairly. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bzzt. That's not a valid reason to keep. Besides, it was nominated by a different person. No one here has yet proven this cow is notable in the wider world. pschemp | talk 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is a valid reason to keep, since you'll see people remove nominations all the time upon realizing that the situation has been recently discussed. Furthermeore, that it is a different person is also irrelevent, since in this case, there's no apparent ignorance of the prior deletion issue. Ergo, I stand by my keep. FrozenPurpleCube 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- while this renomination appears to come from another editor, the arguments remain the same -- verifiability and notability. It appears, now, to be verified; notability is not something that happens overnight. If this nomination were six months after the "keep", I could understand and accept that it failed. Two or three weeks does not, of itself, give the opportunity for the Outside World to declare its interest. If the decision is to delete, then I reiterate my earlier suggestion, that the text be ported to the author's User-page, so that it can be archived, rather than being dematierialised without warning. -- Simon Cursitor 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from notability and verifiability, does it bother anyone else that the cow's owner wrote a Wikipedia article about said cow, and was then featured in a seasonal newspaper article (which was to be expected as the cow has some local notability) where he said "Just look up Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow" on Wikipedia? I don't think Wikipedia has to take itself so seriously that we can't include a little regional folk art here and there, but I feel like we are being used for self-promotion. As far as I can tell, the only reason Gladys will become notable is because she has an article on WP. Isn't that some sort of logical fallacy or circular-something-or-other, possibly phrased in Latin? :) I think the cow keeper means well, but the promotion angle bothers me a lot. As the nom said, we're not here to promote cows. Katr67 08:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All but one of the outside articles written about his subject came before this article was created. As Wikipeidia is not a crystal ball, I don't think anyone, including the original author, could've predicted another outside article written on this subject and that it would include info about the WP entry. The reporter of the recent article actually wrote about this subject before in April. As always, we assume good faith of not only the editors, but even the reporters of the reliable sources. --Oakshade 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AUTHOR ABSTAINS Morning Katr67 - I can understand how you might feel that there is a COI in my having referenced the article, however, there is nothing further from the truth. there is no commerical interest for me in this art, it is not connected to any business venture, and there is no value in self-promotion here, other than shating the information itself.

    The only reason I commented on the article was to note its existence ion anticipation of the significant public interest that a front page article generates. You'uu note that I said "you can find the history of the artwork on wikipedia" - which is a perfectly legitimate thing to say wihout even a hint of a COI - a refernce to a reliable source of veruified information on a notable piece of art, not a commercial shill.

    One other idea - shouldn't the fifth fromt ( yet another....) page article in a huge newspaper be enought to pass notability?

    Final thought - I've revealed my identity through my sign in name - had I something to hide or a COI - I could have selected a pseudonym and none of the previous comments would even be possible. There is no COI and nothing to hide.

    BTW - Tony Spinelli from the post did in fact aggressively pursue the article - he pursued me for it, which means it passed the review of his editors and the rest of the publishers at the post.

    This is more than a christmas display guys - I'll edit the details to better conform today.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 12:52:49

  • Conditional Keep, notable art is not only displayed in museums. If the article can be cleaned up to relevant parts it should be kept. Rough 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that notable art can be found outside of museums. It's also worth recalling that non-notable art can also be found outside of museums, and it may in fact have found, in this, its poster child. Eusebeus 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Type until you are blue in the face, the subject of this article is not notable. One local newspaper does not a famous cow make. Scienter 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scienter's Argument is legitimate, but factually inaccurate - therefore potentially invalid

    Media coverage for this work of art includes:

    The Connecticut Post ( more than five times - including 3 front page placements)

    The Fairfield Citizen ( three times, including one fronty page placement

    The Monroe Courier ( 1X)

    Cablevision channel 12 news

    Part of Scienter's arcument is based on the trivial nature of The Connecticut Post. is the largest circulating paper in South Western CT - and as such doesn't meet the "local" mnimization offered.

    The very nature of this coverage - mutliple reporters, multiple years, multiple photographers defies the "non-notability argument" — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 14:47:02

    • I'm still waiting for evidence that this cow is notable *outside* its home region. Why should the rest of the world care? I don't see *any*. pschemp | talk 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were right on one point: more than one media outlet has "covered" this fake cow statute. I'm not going to engage in an argument on whether or not the Connecticut Post is a local media outlet, especially since we appear to be on the same page. If some choose to consider South Western CT as a large enough coverage area to be considered a national or even regional outlet, so be it. I don't think this articifial cow, covered in different types of paint can possibly be considered "notable." Stretch, twist, and bend the definition of notability until it snaps, at the end of the day the inclusion of the cow article won't break Wikipedia, inclusion just calls the legitimacy of WP into question. I understand how this would seem notable to someone living in the area perhaps.Scienter 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this articifial cow, covered in different types of paint can possibly be considered "notable." — You are making a subjective judgement, not applying notability criteria. Notability is not subjective. You've had several sources cited. The only proper counterargument is to challenge any of those sources that are autobiographical, that are not in fact in-depth articles about the subject at hand, or that have not been fact checked. Your personal subjective estimations of notability are not valid couterarguments. Uncle G 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting concept of a "notability threshold by distance/global scale of notability" - From what I read that notion really isn't supported in wiki policy - seems like the consensus is that the notability test already is passed - multiple non trivial mentions exist, and wiki policy doesn't to my knowlegde address a minimum grographic scale of impact. Can you provide a reference to policy guidance that says "how" notable something must be by geographic disstance? If not, I'd suggest that you defer to the consensus on the apparently resolved notability issue.--James.lebinski 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a close one for me. I am concerned by the potential self-promotion, particularly that I understand that the author of the article is also the artist painting the cow. Additionally, there are, what, hundreds of these plastic cows? (There's one in the University of Chicago Law School cafeteria, for example.) I don't see how this particular plastic cow is more notable than all the other cows. On the other hand there is media coverage - but media coverage of a plastic cow is still...you know, media coverage of a plastic cow. Still, I'm not a fan of a new AfD right after the old one closed - though the old one was pretty "messy," for lack of a better word, so I maybe can see some justification there. On balance it's probably the WP:Auto concerns that swing my vote. Cute cow, though. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts. --TheOtherBob 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every artist has to self promote himself, else they just cease to be notable. Therefore our measure of notability is not the degree of self-promotion but the sources referenced. If there are sources that call it art we have to note that and if sources call it notable we also have to take that into account. If we go after our impressions we should not try to make a encyclopedia. Rough 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, just as every company needs to advertise - but not on Wikipedia. I don't at all mind that the artist self-promotes in the media (I'd think he was crazy if he didn't), nor does it matter how much they self-promote. It's self-promotion through Wikipedia that concerns me. A large part of that is the belief that if something is notable, someone not connected with it will eventually write an article about it - and vice versa.--TheOtherBob 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got your point, and I agree that it is bad style to write about one's own work... but does not reduce notability - if the subject is notable and sorry to say, noted art is always notable ... no matter who notes Rough 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Bob -The POV of the article is on the work, which is the one and only subject of this article. The article itself makes no mention of the artist. The published articles do identify the creator, but that's a byproduct.

    You might be surprised to note that each of the cow parade cows to which you refer are indiviudually notable works of art by other reputable artitsts - selling in some cases for hundreds of thousands at charity auctions.

    This work has noting to do with the cow parade, which makes it especially unique, and when coupled with the ongoing nature of the piece, it becomes especially notable.

    The notability issue appears to have at least some consensus leaning towards "notable". Perhaps the number of people aware of the sculpoture who are currently arguiing its notability may be a proof point in itself.

    The COI piece is open for debate - but per Wiki policy ( I think) is not a reason for deletion in and of itself = especially in the very grey area of communicating facts about a notable work that has no commercial or other finnancial links.--James.lebinski 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I take your point about the artist not being mentioned in the article. However, I think that is exactly backwards and points out the WP:Auto problem. An article about a piece of art should mention the artist. But this article has a hard time discussing the artist, because it's written by the artist - that's where WP:COI comes into play. Is WP:COI a reason to delete? No - but it's a strong argument against notability, and that's why I'm on the deletion side. --TheOtherBob 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand what a single purpose account is my friend? Are you stating that my contribution is limited to this article - if so that is inaccurate. I have authored another wholly unrelated article on IT, and have begun to create wildlilfe related content to add to the American Woodcock, Ring Necked Duck, and Green Winged Teal articles, specifically regarding their flight behaviors

    I think your edit may have been made because ( as a new user) I received come advice to add this a copy of this article to my user page as a protection against deletion and followed some cut and paste instructions provived by another wiki-zen

    Would you please take one of the follwing two actions:

    1) Educate me further on the SPA ? or how to fix my user page

    OR

    2) Withdraw the comment

     — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 17:44:33
  • Delete per my Barry Bonds rule of Hall of Fame worthiness. If A = actual ability and D = performance improvement through deception then A + D = observed performance, but A − D = yardstick for Hof worthiness. This one is Mario Mendoza on 'roids. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are implying that there has some deception in the sources or content the state your case plainly and lets debate that further. Othewise I think that the use of the term approaches WP:UNCIVIL in what has been a pretty civil fact based policy/opinion discussion (prevous personal grooming references aside). Otherwise, could you clarify because I just don't get the sports metaphors.--James.lebinski 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:COI, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NOT a picture gallery, etc. The simple test is, was the article created to improve Wikipedia or was Wikipedia used to increase exposure for the subject. With the scraps of coverage provided as sources this is a clear-cut case. ~ trialsanderrors 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great debate trials. I wonder about your definitions however. Assuming we're not debating the veracity of the coverage - What exactly is a scrap of coverage? How many more media mentions are necessary over what time period to assume substance in your definition? How many more individuals must view the work or the published reviews? On the surface your characterization could be seen as terribly subjective.
        From an obhective measure - the exposure of this art will not substantially increase with wikipedia listing - only the encyclopedic documentation of it will- which does improve wikipedia - bedause its virtual nature is the very thing that allows this breadth of topic to be covered in way not possible in paper based media (ok thats an opinion) . However, in this case, more than three years of pre-wiki notability, almost a dozen articles in three pubklications by more than five individual journalists, TV coverage, and award winning appearances appear to factually contradict your characterization.
        I've read the POV/weight reference and find no policy based merit in citing that - what specific language did you intenbd to apply? I beleive all published points of view are readily presented.--James.lebinski 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is how far it has gone: Gladys now has a listing on Wikipedia, the Web-based encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who can view the site. "If you look Gladys up on Wikipedia, you'll see a picture of her in every outfit she's ever worn," Lebinski said of his main cow. Nothing more to say here. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course there is more to say trials. Quotes are often paraphrases, but this one is in fact accurate. There is an article on Wikipedia ( for the time being anyhow) it comprehensively documents the history of the work, and the existense of this article was notable to the reporter covering the item. Kind of a mirror in a mirror problem isn't it. The wikipedia article exists, it is mentioned as such and persons interested in a more detailed encyclopedic review of the subject can locate such content. Perceiving COI is at least understandable even though none exists, but regardless of that point policy and other commenst have already established that COI is not in itself a criteria for deletion.
  • Keep This folk art or performance art work has demonstrated notability by virtue of numerous newspaper articles and TV coverage over a 3 year period. Its notability is better established than the vast majority of pop culture subjects which have Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia editors are absolutely not the final arbiters of what is or is not art: for them to give their opinion of the work is original research per se.Do the self proclaimed art experts also want to delete Christo and Jeanne-Claude because a structure with fabric wrapped around it is not art? The article cites multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources as to the notability of the work. Edison 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. We just went through this. It is locally notable and of small encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Also mostly WP:OR. Resons to keep are unfounded, just because something is verified then it by no means follows that we should include it. --T-rex 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep as per Edison. Don't keep only the popular culture genres you are familiar with. DGG 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unlikely as it may seem, it's sourced and apparently received press. Seraphimblade 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very close call here. It is well sourced (albeit that all links seem to be to the same source), and it seems to be notable on the local level (WP:LOCAL), but I hesitate to endorse a keep for a handful of troubling reasons.
  1. This article is practically orphaned. Take away the user pages and the links related to deletion, and that would leave one disambiguation article (Gladys) and one redirect (Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow). As is often mentioned around here, orphan articles are usually orphaned for a reason.
  2. Not only does the article exhibit a WP:COI for the author, it is promotional in nature. There is not one word about reaction or reception of the "performance art" at any of the venues that were mentioned in the article (except for one "honorable mention") - this almost is written in a journalistic diary style and not in the style of an encyclopedia (it is almost written from the viewpoint of the cow). Thus it is not a stretch of imagination to call the article an advert for Gladys.
  3. There are far too many pictures in the "article" - Wikipedia is not your own private photo host... and regardless of the outcome of the AfD, the Photo Gallery must be removed.
  4. I am also leery of one local newspaper "supplying" all of the references for this supposedly-significant piece of art (the last "reference," the Monroe Courier article makes no mention of it whatsoever). I would put it on a par with a local newspaper mentioning a particular family having a six-toed cat that plays table tennis... unless there is an independent source demonstrating more than the ability of getting a little promotion in a single local newspaper, I feel compelled to urge delete as a NN advertisement. B.Wind 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done.

I'm new to wiki so perhaps others can enlighten me on the importance of the orphan scenario.

Two mentions of the reaction exist - in the form of two awards in consecutive years, not just one. One was 'best appearing float" the other honorable mention

I'm hard pressed to see how the content or tone is promotional. Ask yourself :If I wasn;t honest enough to identify myself as the primary contributor would you feel the same way. I argue that the historical narrative of the work is unbiased. Style help would be graetfully received as edits though.

The sources referenced contain plenty of verifiable quotes on the reation to the art. Perhaps another editor would like to dig up the news articles to add those to the article????????? Maybe that would even be a way out of the COI jeopardy ( which we've established is not a reason for delietion I think?)

I think one picture per work is about right to present the image, glad to have other editors delete those that are unwotrhy. Question If picasso painted cows, which of subset his works would you propose wasn't worthy of a picture in wikipedia ( ok that's just stupid - but my point is valid nonetheless)???

I've added another reference from two more newspapers ( I could use some help formatting, and I still need to dig up the photo credit/author from the courier) in the refernces section - so I'll ask a similar question to the one before just what number of published references are needed and from how many sources?

You may wish to re-red the courier article - the presence of the art at a charity benefit haunted house is mentioned. I'll grant you thatis is a brief mention.

Lastly - from what authoritative source are you attributing the label "local" to the Post?--James.lebinski 12:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Some people were born to paint cows, others have cow painting thrust upon them--James.lebinski 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that you are not remotly comparable to picasso. This is a painted cow, and "a charity benefit haunted house" is a sign of non-notablity if there ever was one --T-rex 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • T-rex, My apologies in advance.

You've done well to paraphrase my self deprecating humor for the layman. When I wrote "Ok that's just stupid" after the picasso comment a lot of ordinary people wouldn't have gotten the joke.

Now onto the ntability topic. As Uncle G writes, notabiilty dioes not lie within the realm of opinion, youir, mine or anyones. This article clearly passes each of the notablity standards set in the policy and as such, your challenge to notability must be a depate of the policy and the facts here. My argument remains that this meets the definition of notability. Your job must now be to offer affirmative proof that it does not.

On two side notes

1) That charity benefit was attended by more than 2000 individuals ver three days, generating more than a on of non-perishable foods for a shelter. It's been going on for years and also has multiple media refernces - Someone mught just want to write a wiki on that as well, because iot arguably passes the wiki notability test too.

If you were truly born to delete cows you better hurry, because I just got an e-mail from a national publication seeking to follow up on Gladys. Soon the magic number of references from reliable sources will be even more overwhelming. --James.lebinski 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso didn't do what you do because Picasso was a notable artist. You are neither noteable nor an artist. --Descendall 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that you are once again confusing verifiability with notability. I have appeared in local newspapers. I've also been on Fox News and National Public Radio. My existence is completely verifiable. However, I'm simply not notable. Neither is your lawn ornament. Don't construct a straw man here: no one doubts the existence of this plastic cow. It simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Descendall 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's enough information that meets our content policies here, so the information should be kept. Either keep and cleanup (e.g. we really don't need that many photographs) or pare down a bit and merge with Fairfield, Connecticut; either of those outcomes is fine with me. P.S. The references list three different newspapers, not just one. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have a garden gnome. I'm sure I can do something extraordinary to it and get it featured in a local newspaper. Don't let Wikipedia be abused for marketing in this way, I beg of you! Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Samsara,

You may wish to see the previous debate on the "local" reference to the publication, as well as to note that there are many articles, and many publications over many years. Perhaps then you could offer facts to supoprt the "local" opinion.

You may also with to review uncle g's treatise on notability.

Further, the fact that you agree that this is extraordonary art is counter to your argument, and the fact that your nome is not yet notable is one indicator that said condition is not a given.

Finally, (and especially since yo must assume good faith per wiki policy) just what do you think is being marketed here?--James.lebinski 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof you can give that you won't be turning Ms Gladys into money in the longer term. Then we'll all be waking up to the fact that you used that Wikipedia entry to gain coverage in the local press, and the local press articles to cement the status of notability in Wikipedia. Where did I say it was art? I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. And feel free to assume bad faith, I don't mind. But no, I don't think it's art. Just because my garden shed is painted, doesn't make it art. And my gnome is not notable because I haven't tried to promote it. Because I don't care. About the contents of Wikipedia, I do care. Finally, I don't share your sense of worship for Uncle G and prefer to use my own judgement. The purpose of AfDs is not that one person puts forth a notion and the rest follow like sheep. The purpose is to get a variety of opinions and find a consensus. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry you are too late to have original garden gnome art, there was a group in Northern France called The Garden Gnome Liberation Army who- besides kidnapping gnomes out of gardens camouflaged them, I think after them all garden gnome art is trivial (smirk) Rough 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wonderful Samasa!

Lets examine the discusuon thread a bit further, but I'd prefer to stay within a fact/policy based disciussion - which can reduce the level of emoition involned. Aplogies for any ruffled feathers to date.

1) Can you support your claim that The Post is "local" and implication that therefore the coverage was insignificant

Here's my fact based argument from http://www.medianewsgroup.com/mngi/newsgroups/connpost.html

"The Connecticut Post is located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and publishes a morning newspaper seven days a week and is distributed primarily in Fairfield County, the most affluent county in the United States. The Connecticut Post also publishes the Westport News, Fairfield Citizen-News, Darien New-Review, and the Norwalk Citizen-News, weekly newspapers, known as the Brooks Newspaper Group, distributed in Fairfield County and surrounding areas.

Daily Circulation: 77,469 Sunday Circulation: 89,306"

Fact: More thah 75 thousand people at a time have seen this art and articles aboiut it on the front page of this periodical ( and others) in several articles over many years

2) The good faith policy reference was to my contribution, not your dissent. I already assume your good faith in challenging this contribution, and I respect it - oitherwise I'd be crazy to spend such energy refuting it, and I may just be crazy anyhow. In short, I think that according to wiki-policy you must assume my good faith in making this contributiion, and therefor not consider what you think might happen in the future. On the top of that presumption you have my testimony in this AFD that I am actying in good faithe with significant content to back that up.

3) The facts do not support your argument that the wikipedia article is used to draw media attention. All but one of the published references were months or years before the creation of the enty. The press had noticed the topic long before this content was wiki-d. The order of events goes new and media coverage ( and lots of it) then wiki article. Not the reverse.

4) I accept that you do not consider this art and apologize for implying that you did. we now have agreement on a point that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and not a criteria for deletion in any event. Personal opinions just don't count per policy though. Compliance with notability does.

5) Uncle G's well wrtitten comments ( ok thats opinion) that accurately portray notability (ditto) was the reference here, not the contributor. His position, per wiki policy is that the subject passes notability - again I invite you to present a fact based counter argument that combinbes your judgement with wiki-policy.

Have a wiki-day!--James.lebinski 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you do not consider this art and apologize for implying that you did. we now have agreement on a point that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and not a criteria for deletion in any event. I thought it was all important a moment ago. Your views change very quickly. Maybe they will change to conclude that this article merits deletion. I invite you to present a fact based counter argument. Non-notability has no references. [2] Finally, as has been mentioned before, this article uses the Wikipedia article to establish notability. I hope the circularity of this has occurred to you. Have a nice day. "Samasa" (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well done Samsara. A perfectly excuted Esquive, but your are in line for the factual version of a Carton noir, especially for returning the favor of putting words in my mouth.

To the fact-cave yet again...the other bobs advice notwithstanding......

A fact based counter argument is as follows:

The language reads exactly as pasted. However, the notabiilty point was not conceded, nor did the position change. Read a bit more carefully, the senstence means that anyones subjective agreement that this work can be called art is simultaneously a subject of disagrement, which can never be resolved ( de gustibus) and most importantly a topic of irrelevance to the AFD. The fact is, whether you or I think this is art is of no consequence to the discussion nor is it a reason to delete per wiki policy. That viewpoint has not changed one bit.

To be honest, You've stumped me on the second part. I followed the link and still have no idea what your non-notabilty refernce is, but if you'll explain in non-wiki magic links, I'll try to answer.

Finally, You are factually correct in that a single, and most recent of more than 7 properly referenced non-trivial independent news articles contains a quote from me that mentions the existence of the wiki-article. If you follow the date math it goes like this: First comes more than 6 notable referemces, then a wiki-article, then yet another news article in which the wiki-article was mentioned as a minor point. The genesis of the most recent news article was not the wiki-article - you'll find date-stamped proof of the pre-existing intent of the reporter to cover the story in the first AFD. The cause was instead the previous notability of the work from three years of coverage, more directly it was a follow up to the "moving" piece six months later. Moreover even if you stike that article from the record - the notability test is still passed. Add in the good faith policy, coupled with the fact that others tell me coi ( however unfounded) is not a reason for deletion and there is no case. Again, Notability was met years before the publication of the most recent article.

Sorry about the typo on your ID - thats merely my fingers betraying me. Have a Phrases d'armes & wiki night!--James.lebinski 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

  • Speedy keep for procedural reasons. Bless us father, for we have sinned: it has been less than one month since the last AfD for this article. --Dennisthe2 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it was not properly closed the first time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing new to add. TheRingess 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for reasons outlined in the first AfD. Also, nominator is using faulty logic - there can't be a COI because cows can't type.For the humor-impaired, that's a joke, but still keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How the hell is that book a redlink? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff, honestly. I think if you're going to be joking, you should mark it as a comment, not a strong keep vote. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The second part about cows and their inability to type is a joke. The strong keep remains - the first AfD covered it just fine, the media coverage more than warrants inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meta Comment This debate is going pretty well, but I would encourage the author / cow-owner to avoid treating the article as something that he owns. That's probably coming up as a problem here because of the conflict of interest concerns that we've already gone over. But remember that we're all here to discuss - and some people (ok, me) find it mildly problematic when one person responds to and challenges every comment they disagree with. It's tempting, and hard to avoid when you feel like it's your article (or your cow) being talked about - but it really does (a) make it look like you're taking ownership, and (b) discourage discussion. Just a suggestion - and like all suggestions it may be, well, you know, cow-poop - so feel free to take or leave it.--TheOtherBob 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Media coverage in and of itself does not make something notable, only verifiable. Everything written about in a local paper is *not* inherently notable because it appeared there. I'm still waiting for someone to lay out clearly why this thing is notable. Can anyone give an arguement other than "because it was in the local paper?" pschemp | talk 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If media coverage is the barometer put forth by all of our notability guidelines, and media coverage isn't the barometer you would like to use regarding the notability of this subject, what do you propose instead? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Media coverage is only an indicator, an adjunct in determining notability, but it isn't the *only* thing that confers notability on a topic. So far, it has been the *only* argument for notability. That isn't enough to prove notability. There's an article in my local paper today about a local plumber who helps old people with plumbing problems. He is verified, but being mentioned by the press alone does not make him notable. What actually makes this cow notable? (and more than *just* verified - no one is arguing that the cow isn't verified.) Verification is only one part of notability. It isn't the whole story. pschemp | talk 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since we're getting reverse-WP:POKEMON about a local plumber, if he had "multiple" published works about him, like this cow has, then there would be an argument for an article for him. --Oakshade 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your reverse-Pokemon, and raise you a Chewbacca. :-P Seriously, though - it's worth exploring whether notability should be the same for "human interest stories" (for lack of a better word). But I think that's a discussion for another time and place--TheOtherBob 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one is pretty academic PSchemp, and I believe that you are incorrect. The primary notability policy is explicit, and im my opinion is contrary to your assertion, applying the policy to the coverage of this topic is exactly the thing that has objectively determined notability:

For the record:

...a topic is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. CHECK

What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies. Many Newspapaer Articles in differemt papers - Check

The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable). Many Authors/Reporters/Photographers, All from Independent sources, Check

Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject. Multiple articles, in depth written discussions, Check

For the other Bob - your poiints weigh heavy on me in terms of not wanting to stifle legitimate discussion and avoiding the whole "own" thing. However, the notability psotion being argured is just plain inaccurate here. I'm a wiki-user of only a few days, and I've foundd the fact based content to back up the notability position rather easily.

Seems to me that seems to me that a more experienced user could process the data just as objectively and probably more efficiently to arrive at a policy conclusion.

Meeting the primary criteria is in fact, accorfing to policy the *only* argument needed

Regards and I'll try to stay silent from now on,--James.lebinski 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment THREE newspapers does not equal "many". SO a reporter at one of them has a soft spot for your cow. That still isn't "many". I think you are using Wikipedia as an advertisement to further your own cow and the fact that people here think that kind of use of our encyclopedia is acceptable is disgusting. pschemp | talk 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people would include "three" in the "MULTIPLE" catagory (that's alot more newspapers writing about this than alot of subjects on WP). There are actually at least 7 different articles on this subject with at least 7 different reporters cited. --Oakshade 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry otherbob, I can't stay out of the fray - fact wise anyhow. Pschemp - its actually four newspapers. Based on previously established notability i'll offer that that the only furthering of the art is when it is carried back to the workshop to create the next piece. Gladys is art - not an empire! Wiki is the right place for the article Proof point: a free vanity website could be instantly created, and not subject to peer review, nor notability, nor any wiki rules. You'll note that none has ever existed, and that the ONLY references on the web are the idependent sources themselves. Better that way I think.--James.lebinski 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this obviously self-promotional article. Especially bad -- the fact that wikipedia actually uses the phrase "mooving." Way, way too campy. Bonus points: not even close to a decent peice of art. --Descendall 08:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to go this way for now. It is written about in 3 local papers. So we have multiple sources. That means it is not OR and is verifiable. Now, the question is are these sources non-tivial? I'm not convinced that they are. But given the recent vote, I'm willing to let this stay for now. Having said that, additional sources would make this an easier call. Also given the dates and detail, one wonders where all of this data came from. Was all of it from those seven or so newspaper articles? The pictures show that the cow does exist with several paint jobs. One other point for keeping. The fact that this cow is repainted so often may make it unique which would be notable in and of itself. Vegaswikian 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_the_Swiss_Dairy_Cow_(2_nomination)&oldid=1214580516"