1642:
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.
2045:. 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.
813:, 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
436:
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.
765:
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
Knowledge (XXG), inclusion just calls the legitimacy of WP into question. I understand how this would seem notable to someone living in the area perhaps.
797:- 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.--
1478:. 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 Knowledge (XXG), 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. -
1544:"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.
366:
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?
1098:
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.
1806:- 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?"
781:. 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.
1964:
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.--
1835:
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.
1050:
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.
1347:
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
1834:
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
1634:
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
1553:
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
1340:
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
1963:
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!
1793:
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)
1469:
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
Knowledge (XXG) entry to gain coverage in the local press, and the local press articles to cement the status of notability in Knowledge (XXG).
1280:
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
1097:
Of course there is more to say trials. Quotes are often paraphrases, but this one is in fact accurate. There is an article on
Knowledge (XXG) ( 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
527:
Aside from notability and verifiability, does it bother anyone else that the cow's owner wrote a
Knowledge (XXG) 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
365:
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
Knowledge (XXG). Trivial subject = not notable. "The opposite exists also: things
1561:
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.
1268:
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.
1043:
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
826:
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
435:
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
1916:
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
1557:
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
1373:
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
1272:
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
764:
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
575:
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
572:
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
1939:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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
490:
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
1641:
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
1221:
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
926:
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
400:
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
1565:
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
1112:
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 Knowledge (XXG) articles. Knowledge (XXG) editors are
1049:
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
1236:
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
1276:
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
528:
Dairy Cow" on Knowledge (XXG)? I don't think Knowledge (XXG) 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
550:, 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
1878:
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
1554:
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.
285:- 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.
1070:: Gladys now has a listing on Knowledge (XXG), the Web-based encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who can view the site. "If you look Gladys up on Knowledge (XXG), you'll see a picture of her in every outfit she's ever worn," Lebinski said of his main cow.
507:-- 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
237:- 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.
532:
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.
1953:
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.
1635:( 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.
257:), 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.
1896:
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.
1449:
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.
1794:
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.--
1033:
a picture gallery, etc. The simple test is, was the article created to improve Knowledge (XXG) or was Knowledge (XXG) used to increase exposure for the subject. With the scraps of coverage provided as sources this is a clear-cut case. ~
456:, 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. --
1351:
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.
893:
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
929:
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
78:
1903:
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).
583:
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
351:
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."
1819:
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?
882:
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
861:
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
889:
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
1865:. :-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--
1531:
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.
1582:
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
2033:
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. --
634:
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.
1638:
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.
678:
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.
314:
173:
73:
66:
1456:
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.
1053:
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.--
1337:
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.
588:
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.
1419:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) be abused for marketing in this way, I beg of you!
1013:
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.--
269:
In light of my previous comment, and per the nom, although I have a soft spot for plastic cows, the mention of the Knowledge (XXG) article in the local paper makes me agree this is a serious
387:
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,
1312:
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 --
1009:
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
1113:
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
904:
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
1762:
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. --
511:, 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
912:
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. --
1550:
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
1620:
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.
515:, 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. --
844:. 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
1982:, someone should start to define notability so it is not a rubber clause ... stretchable in every direction to suit the needs encountered - or it should be abolished. Naem
1910:
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.
1920:
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.
1117:
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.
886:
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.
113:
108:
1284:
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.
418:
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). -
117:
852:. 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.--
1265:
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
477:
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.
100:
1890:...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.
1852:
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. --
1222:
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.
1585:
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.
1206:
This article is practically orphaned. Take away the user pages and the links related to deletion, and that would leave one disambiguation article (
253:
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 (
1232:
I am also leery of one local newspaper "supplying" all of the references for this supposedly-significant piece of art (the last "reference," the
2049:
2037:
2023:
2006:
1986:
1968:
1958:
1948:
1930:
1869:
1856:
1843:
1829:
1814:
1798:
1771:
1757:
1737:
1723:
1698:
1684:
1665:
1649:
1607:
1573:
1516:
1493:
1463:
1434:
1411:
1382:
1368:
1356:
1320:
1304:
1291:
1245:
1182:
1170:
1158:
1138:
1121:
1076:
1057:
1038:
1017:
1004:
916:
898:
866:
856:
835:
821:
801:
785:
769:
753:
740:
727:
714:
653:
638:
626:
562:
537:
519:
495:
485:
472:
460:
440:
425:
409:
395:
374:
356:
329:
305:
293:
277:
261:
245:
229:
213:
194:
180:
167:
57:
706:
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*.
317:, 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
961:
697:
609:
1596:
uses the Knowledge (XXG) article to establish notability. I hope the circularity of this has occurred to you. Have a nice day. "Samasa" (
325:
items are allowed. The coverage is not trivial (i.e. not a directory listing, a mention or store hours), even though the subject is. --
457:
1661:
for procedural reasons. Bless us father, for we have sinned: it has been less than one month since the last AfD for this article. --
1129:
again. We just went through this. It is locally notable and of small encyclopedic value. Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia.
468:
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.
17:
681:
The very nature of this coverage - mutliple reporters, multiple years, multiple photographers defies the "non-notability argument"
1785:
This debate is going pretty well, but I would encourage the author / cow-owner to avoid treating the article as something that he
1341:
argument remains that this meets the definition of notability. Your job must now be to offer affirmative proof that it does not.
1707:
104:
1150:. Resons to keep are unfounded, just because something is verified then it by no means follows that we should include it. --
579:
One other idea - shouldn't the fifth fromt ( yet another....) page article in a huge newspaper be enought to pass notability?
576:
hint of a COI - a refernce to a reliable source of veruified information on a notable piece of art, not a commercial shill.
1753:
1603:
1489:
1459:
Finally, (and especially since yo must assume good faith per wiki policy) just what do you think is being marketed here?--
1430:
880:
The article itself makes no mention of the artist. The published articles do identify the creator, but that's a byproduct.
339:
regarding the nom's added comment of this article being created by a SPA - First of all, OH REALLY? Thanks for the news,
2064:
36:
622:, notable art is not only displayed in museums. If the article can be cleaned up to relevant parts it should be kept.
1535:
1) Can you support your claim that The Post is "local" and implication that therefore the coverage was insignificant
1211:
746:
720:
96:
87:
1645:
Sorry about the typo on your ID - thats merely my fingers betraying me. Have a Phrases d'armes & wiki night!--
1403:; either of those outcomes is fine with me. P.S. The references list three different newspapers, not just one.
318:
1742:
Jeff, honestly. I think if you're going to be joking, you should mark it as a comment, not a strong keep vote. -
1114:
1364:
Picasso didn't do what you do because Picasso was a notable artist. You are neither noteable nor an artist. --
2063:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
957:
693:
605:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1825:
1767:
1733:
1719:
732:
There are hundreds of notable art pieces that have only a regional importance, take for example the sculpture
187:
1706:
for reasons outlined in the first AfD. Also, nominator is using faulty logic - there can't be a COI because
1044:
the work or the published reviews? On the surface your characterization could be seen as terribly subjective.
2020:
1998:
1676:
1391:
There's enough information that meets our content policies here, so the information should be kept. Either
1130:
775:
I don't think this articifial cow, covered in different types of paint can possibly be considered "notable."
423:
1995:
949:
778:
685:
597:
492:
469:
1504:
Sorry you are too late to have original garden gnome art, there was a group in Northern France called The
1400:
1821:
1763:
1729:
1715:
1983:
1187:
Very close call here. It is well sourced (albeit that all links seem to be to the same source), and it
2034:
1408:
1379:
1365:
1073:
1035:
1001:
878:
Thanks Bob -The POV of the article is on the work, which is the one and only subject of this article.
191:
163:
1849:
225:
although I wonder if the fact that the Cow has an entry in Knowledge (XXG) itself means anything --
1965:
1927:
1646:
1570:
1460:
1353:
1301:
1288:
1054:
1014:
953:
895:
798:
689:
601:
254:
52:
908:
mention the artist. But this article has a hard time discussing the artist, because it's written
380:
322:
2017:
1179:
516:
419:
1192:
1010:
448:
Well researched, well documented article on a road side folk art attraction. New Jersey has its
384:
153:
817:
concerns that swing my vote. Cute cow, though. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts. --
1945:
1862:
1840:
1811:
1747:
1597:
1539:
1483:
1424:
711:
482:
449:
406:
371:
290:
242:
152:. We cannot reward this. This is a trivial, trivial cow, she don't have a shred of notability
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1262:
I'm new to wiki so perhaps others can enlighten me on the importance of the orphan scenario.
1026:
841:
814:
810:
2046:
1923:
Meeting the primary criteria is in fact, accorfing to policy the *only* argument needed
1866:
1795:
1287:
Lastly - from what authoritative source are you attributing the label "local" to the Post?--
913:
853:
818:
1790:
1786:
1226:
1218:
1030:
1022:
849:
591:
This is more than a christmas display guys - I'll edit the details to better conform today.
551:
547:
348:
270:
143:
1695:
1662:
1404:
1317:
1155:
158:
1147:
555:
1214:). As is often mentioned around here, orphan articles are usually orphaned for a reason.
344:
49:
795:
Interesting concept of a "notability threshold by distance/global scale of notability"
1955:
1853:
997:
766:
736:, one of Hoetgers key works ... Outside Darmstadt, Germany only specialists know it.
650:
635:
559:
453:
392:
353:
326:
210:
177:
1941:
1836:
1807:
1781:
1743:
1479:
1420:
782:
750:
724:
707:
478:
437:
402:
367:
340:
286:
238:
646:
Type until you are blue in the face, the subject of this article is not notable.
134:
1166:
as per Edison. Don't keep only the popular culture genres you are familiar with.
1242:
1229:... and regardless of the outcome of the AfD, the Photo Gallery must be removed.
1118:
666:
The Connecticut Post ( more than five times - including 3 front page placements)
534:
274:
258:
226:
1593:
1067:
222:
146:
1513:
1313:
1298:
Some people were born to paint cows, others have cow painting thrust upon them
1151:
863:
832:
737:
623:
302:
777:— You are making a subjective judgement, not applying notability criteria.
206:
1374:
straw man here: no one doubts the existence of this plastic cow. It simply
1906:
Many Authors/Reporters/Photographers, All from Independent sources, Check
1628:
To the fact-cave yet again...the other bobs advice notwithstanding......
1395:(e.g. we really don't need that many photographs) or pare down a bit and
1167:
669:
The Fairfield Citizen ( three times, including one fronty page placement
2016:
per Jeff and Edison (is there a prize for "least likely AfD !votes" ?)
1178:, unlikely as it may seem, it's sourced and apparently received press.
1558:
media coverage ( and lots of it) then wiki article. Not the reverse.
1207:
924:
I'm not sure I understand what a single purpose account is my friend?
542:
All but one of the outside articles written about his subject came
190:
out of process, so this 2nd nomination is perfectly legitimate. ~
1512:
them, I think after them all garden gnome art is trivial (smirk)
2057:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
174:
1st AfD for Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow ending November 16, 2006
79:
Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)
1789:. That's probably coming up as a problem here because of the
1453:
You may also with to review uncle g's treatise on notability.
937:
1) Educate me further on the SPA ? or how to fix my user page
1540:
http://www.medianewsgroup.com/mngi/newsgroups/connpost.html
659:
Scienter's Argument is legitimate, but factually inaccurate
1590:
972:
per my Barry Bonds rule of Hall of Fame worthiness. If
554:
of not only the editors, but even the reporters of the
149:
130:
126:
122:
1912:
Multiple articles, in depth written discussions, Check
1587:
I invite you to present a fact based counter argument.
1547:
Daily Circulation: 77,469 Sunday Circulation: 89,306"
934:
Would you please take one of the follwing two actions:
1712:
For the humor-impaired, that's a joke, but still keep
1474:
And feel free to assume bad faith, I don't mind. But
840:
Sure, just as every company needs to advertise - but
1899:
Many Newspapaer Articles in differemt papers - Check
1675:
Actually, it was not properly closed the first time.
809:
This was a close one for me. I am concerned by the
719:You are conflating notability and planetwide fame.
209:, and add this cow to the cow list on that article.
1917:back up the notability position rather easily.
1225:There are far too many pictures in the "article" -
383:and you seem to agree it's verfied (thanks for the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1926:Regards and I'll try to stay silent from now on,--
1227:Knowledge (XXG) is not your own private photo host
980:= performance improvement through deception then
2067:). No further edits should be made to this page.
573:here, other than shating the information itself.
74:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow
67:Articles for deletion/Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow
745:You are conflating notability and importance.
648:One local newspaper does not a famous cow make.
1508:who- besides kidnapping gnomes out of gardens
1631:A fact based counter argument is as follows:
663:Media coverage for this work of art includes:
8:
1861:I see your reverse-Pokemon, and raise you a
996:= yardstick for Hof worthiness. This one is
1470:Where did I say it was art? I'd appreciate
546:this article was created. As Wikipeidia is
831:we should not try to make a encyclopedia.
1728:How the hell is that book a redlink? --
1592:Finally, as has been mentioned before,
71:
64:
747:Notability is not fame nor importance
721:Notability is not fame nor importance
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1472:if you didn't put words in my mouth.
1237:newspaper, I feel compelled to urge
1217:Not only does the article exhibit a
1538:Here's my fact based argument from
1376:does not belong in an encyclopedia.
1199:for a handful of troubling reasons.
491:issue. Ergo, I stand by my keep.
63:
1589:Non-notability has no references.
1191:to be notable on the local level (
24:
927:regarding their flight behaviors
1331:T-rex, My apologies in advance.
1195:), but I hesitate to endorse a
661:- therefore potentially invalid
1348:the wiki notability test too.
458:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
44:The result was unfortunately,
1:
2024:20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
2007:21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1987:20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1969:03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1959:22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1949:22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1931:20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1870:22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1857:20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1844:20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1830:17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1815:17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1799:15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1772:13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1758:13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1738:11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1724:11:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1699:05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1685:17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1666:04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1650:02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1608:01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1574:15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1517:14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1494:13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1464:12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1435:03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1412:00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1357:12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1321:03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1305:00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1292:12:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1246:23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1183:22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1171:22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1159:21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1139:20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1122:19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1077:23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1058:21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1039:21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1018:19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1005:19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
917:17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
899:17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
867:21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
857:20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
836:19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
822:16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
802:17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
786:19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
770:18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
754:15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
741:19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
728:19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
715:16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
654:14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
639:14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
627:14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
563:16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
538:08:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
520:08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
496:15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
486:06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
473:06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
461:06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
441:06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
426:10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
410:06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
396:05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
375:05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
357:05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
330:05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
306:04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
294:04:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
278:04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
262:04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
246:04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
230:04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
214:04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
195:21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
181:05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
168:03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
156:. Say no to cow-promotion! -
2050:01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
2038:08:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
1848:Since we're getting reverse-
1566:judgement with wiki-policy.
1506:Garden Gnome Liberation Army
1383:04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1369:03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1146:- not notable. Also mostly
1072:Nothing more to say here. ~
988:= observed performance, but
827:account. If we go after our
779:Notability is not subjective
186:Note that the first AfD was
58:07:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1068:This is how far it has gone
675:Cablevision channel 12 news
2084:
1996:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1476:no, I don't think it's art
1212:Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow
97:Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow
88:Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow
1115:Christo and Jeanne-Claude
154:outside a very small area
2060:Please do not modify it.
811:potential self-promotion
672:The Monroe Courier ( 1X)
379:Like I said, agree it's
32:Please do not modify it.
1241:as a NN advertisement.
943:2) Withdraw the comment
846:through Knowledge (XXG)
734:Dying Mother with Child
347:! Secondly, I've read
313:- "Strong" because the
1401:Fairfield, Connecticut
842:not on Knowledge (XXG)
150:Single-purpose account
142:2nd nom. Unimaginable
62:AfDs for this article:
976:= actual ability and
964:) 2006-11-28 17:44:33
700:) 2006-11-28 14:47:02
612:) 2006-11-28 12:52:49
1791:conflict of interest
1694:nothing new to add.
1210:) and one redirect (
1027:WP:NPOV#Undue weight
271:conflict of interest
1887:For the record:
323:Interesting/Trivial
255:User:James.lebinski
1569:Have a wiki-day!--
1344:On two side notes
548:not a crystal ball
337:Additional comment
221:- Featured in MSM
201:I would suggest a
1828:
1770:
1752:
1736:
1722:
1713:
1602:
1522:Wonderful Samasa!
1488:
1429:
966:
952:comment added by
702:
688:comment added by
614:
600:comment added by
552:assume good faith
450:Lucy the Elephant
321:is established.
166:
2075:
2062:
2003:
2002::) Dlohcierekim
1824:
1766:
1750:
1732:
1718:
1711:
1681:
1680::) Dlohcierekim
1600:
1486:
1427:
1393:keep and cleanup
1277:nonetheless)???
1135:
1134::) Dlohcierekim
965:
946:
701:
682:
613:
594:
556:reliable sources
493:FrozenPurpleCube
470:FrozenPurpleCube
162:
138:
120:
55:
34:
2083:
2082:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2065:deletion review
2058:
2001:
1708:cows can't type
1679:
1133:
1074:trialsanderrors
1036:trialsanderrors
1002:trialsanderrors
947:
683:
595:
570:AUTHOR ABSTAINS
319:WP:Verification
192:trialsanderrors
111:
95:
92:
84:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2081:
2079:
2070:
2069:
2053:
2052:
2040:
2027:
2026:
2018:Angus McLellan
2011:
2010:
2009:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1966:James.lebinski
1928:James.lebinski
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1822:badlydrawnjeff
1801:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1764:badlydrawnjeff
1740:
1730:badlydrawnjeff
1716:badlydrawnjeff
1701:
1688:
1687:
1669:
1668:
1647:James.lebinski
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1571:James.lebinski
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1519:
1497:
1496:
1461:James.lebinski
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1438:
1437:
1414:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1371:
1354:James.lebinski
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1302:James.lebinski
1289:James.lebinski
1281:many sources?
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1234:Monroe Courier
1230:
1223:
1215:
1201:
1200:
1185:
1173:
1161:
1141:
1124:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1061:
1060:
1055:James.lebinski
1051:
1046:
1045:
1015:James.lebinski
967:
954:James.lebinski
921:
920:
919:
896:James.lebinski
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
804:
799:James.lebinski
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
690:James.lebinski
656:
641:
629:
616:
602:James.lebinski
567:
566:
565:
522:
517:Simon Cursitor
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
463:
443:
430:
429:
428:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
360:
359:
333:
332:
308:
296:
280:
264:
248:
232:
216:
198:
197:
140:
139:
91:
90:(2 nomination)
85:
83:
82:
81:
76:
70:
69:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2080:
2068:
2066:
2061:
2055:
2054:
2051:
2048:
2044:
2041:
2039:
2036:
2032:
2029:
2028:
2025:
2022:
2019:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2004:
1997:
1993:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1985:
1981:
1978:
1977:
1970:
1967:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1929:
1924:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1908:
1907:
1901:
1900:
1894:
1893:
1888:
1877:
1871:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1674:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1648:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1629:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1536:
1533:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1322:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1180:Seraphimblade
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
1000:on 'roids. ~
999:
998:Mario Mendoza
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
963:
959:
955:
951:
945:
944:
941:
938:
935:
931:
925:
922:
918:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
891:
887:
884:
879:
876:
868:
865:
860:
859:
858:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
812:
808:
805:
803:
800:
796:
793:
787:
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
771:
768:
763:
755:
752:
748:
744:
743:
742:
739:
735:
731:
730:
729:
726:
722:
718:
717:
716:
713:
709:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
660:
657:
655:
652:
649:
645:
642:
640:
637:
633:
630:
628:
625:
621:
617:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
592:
589:
586:
585:
580:
577:
571:
568:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
536:
531:
526:
523:
521:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
497:
494:
489:
488:
487:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
471:
467:
464:
462:
459:
455:
454:Elsie the Cow
452:and there is
451:
447:
444:
442:
439:
434:
431:
427:
424:
421:
417:
411:
408:
404:
399:
398:
397:
394:
390:
389:keep it civil
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
297:
295:
292:
288:
284:
281:
279:
276:
272:
268:
265:
263:
260:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
240:
236:
233:
231:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
199:
196:
193:
189:
188:speedily kept
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
175:
170:
169:
165:
161:
160:
155:
151:
147:
145:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
89:
86:
80:
77:
75:
72:
68:
65:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2059:
2056:
2042:
2030:
2013:
1999:
1991:
1984:213.42.21.78
1979:
1940:disgusting.
1936:
1925:
1922:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1895:
1891:
1889:
1886:
1803:
1782:Meta Comment
1780:
1703:
1691:
1677:
1672:
1658:
1653:
1644:
1640:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1594:this article
1586:
1581:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1537:
1534:
1530:
1521:
1509:
1505:
1475:
1471:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1448:
1416:
1396:
1392:
1375:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1297:
1295:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1238:
1233:
1196:
1188:
1175:
1163:
1143:
1131:
1126:
1109:
1066:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
948:— Preceding
942:
939:
936:
933:
932:
928:
923:
909:
905:
892:
888:
885:
881:
877:
845:
828:
806:
794:
774:
733:
684:— Preceding
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
658:
647:
643:
631:
619:
618:Conditional
596:— Preceding
593:
590:
587:
582:
581:
578:
574:
569:
543:
529:
524:
512:
508:
504:
465:
445:
432:
388:
336:
310:
298:
282:
266:
250:
234:
218:
202:
171:
157:
141:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
2047:Vegaswikian
1994:Please see
1879:notability:
1867:TheOtherBob
1796:TheOtherBob
1704:Strong keep
1659:Speedy keep
1510:camouflaged
1164:strong keep
914:TheOtherBob
854:TheOtherBob
850:concerns me
829:impressions
819:TheOtherBob
311:Strong Keep
301:per above.
2035:Descendall
1850:WP:POKEMON
1696:TheRingess
1663:Dennisthe2
1405:JYolkowski
1380:Descendall
1366:Descendall
1256:Well done.
1011:WP:UNCIVIL
385:WP:UNCIVIL
1863:Chewbacca
883:auctions.
433:Weak Keep
401:uncivil.
381:WP:TRIVIA
345:Bernstien
207:CowParade
1956:Oakshade
1854:Oakshade
1754:contribs
1604:contribs
1490:contribs
1443:Samsara,
1431:contribs
1296:Remember
1273:think?)
1193:WP:LOCAL
962:contribs
950:unsigned
930:wiki-zen
894:links.--
767:Scienter
698:contribs
686:unsigned
651:Scienter
636:Eusebeus
610:contribs
598:unsigned
560:Oakshade
393:Oakshade
354:Oakshade
341:Woodward
327:Oakshade
211:Tubezone
203:redirect
178:Oakshade
2000:Cheers,
1992:Comment
1942:pschemp
1937:Comment
1837:pschemp
1808:pschemp
1804:Comment
1744:Samsara
1678:Cheers,
1673:Comment
1480:Samsara
1421:Samsara
1132:Cheers,
890:itself.
815:WP:Auto
783:Uncle G
751:Uncle G
725:Uncle G
708:pschemp
530:because
525:Comment
479:pschemp
438:Shimeru
403:pschemp
368:pschemp
315:1st AfD
287:pschemp
283:Comment
251:Comment
239:pschemp
164:crztalk
114:protect
109:history
2031:Delete
2021:(Talk)
1692:Delete
1583:event.
1417:Delete
1243:B.Wind
1239:delete
1219:WP:COI
1208:Gladys
1144:Delete
1119:Edison
1031:WP:NOT
1023:WP:COI
970:Delete
906:should
807:Delete
644:Delete
632:Delete
544:before
535:Katr67
513:delete
509:"keep"
349:WP:SPA
299:Delete
275:Katr67
267:Delete
259:Katr67
235:Delete
227:Tawker
148:by an
144:WP:COI
118:delete
1892:CHECK
1514:Rough
1399:with
1397:merge
1189:seems
1148:WP:OR
864:Rough
848:that
833:Rough
738:Rough
624:Rough
584:hide.
505:Keep
303:MER-C
135:views
127:watch
123:links
54:desat
16:<
2043:Keep
2014:Keep
1980:Keep
1946:talk
1841:talk
1826:talk
1812:talk
1787:owns
1768:talk
1748:talk
1734:talk
1720:talk
1714:. --
1598:talk
1484:talk
1425:talk
1409:talk
1197:keep
1176:Keep
1127:Keep
1110:Keep
958:talk
712:talk
694:talk
620:Keep
606:talk
558:. --
483:talk
466:KEep
446:Keep
407:talk
372:talk
291:talk
243:talk
223:here
219:Note
176:) --
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
50:Core
48:. --
1654:.
1407://
1318:rex
1168:DGG
1156:rex
420:Mgm
343:or
205:to
159:crz
1954:--
1944:|
1839:|
1820:--
1810:|
1756:)
1606:)
1492:)
1433:)
1378:--
1352:--
1300:--
1029:,
1025:,
992:−
984:+
960:•
940:OR
910:by
749:.
723:.
710:|
696:•
608:•
481:|
405:|
391:--
370:|
352:--
289:|
273:.
241:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
1751:•
1746:(
1710:.
1601:•
1487:•
1482:(
1428:•
1423:(
1316:-
1314:T
1154:-
1152:T
994:D
990:A
986:D
982:A
978:D
974:A
956:(
692:(
604:(
422:|
172:(
137:)
99:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.