1600:
media just because of a bestiality case in Sudan. If it were apart of an article that included a lot more information about related cases, then it might be encylopedic, you can make an article about every story in the 'odd news' section of a newspaper, it would be easy to fill up wikipedia with 1000s of such articles, what makes this story so special? I should add that it would be more encyclopedic to have the article named after the individual accused of bestiality with the goat, and the laws regarding his case in Sudan, but then I bet many of the people voting 'keep' would be voting delete as he is non notable.
1271:
because it is not a notable event. They *will* print things that are notable. Now please stop wasting people's time and properly explain why this is *not* notable, rather than baldly stating, contrary to all common sense, that things printed in hundreds of news sources are not notable. There are plenty of things that are not notable, e.g., Paris Hilton, except insofar as that people are interested in them. So I don't quite get the 'this is not notable, because it's only printed because people find it interesting'
459:. A handful of special interest and lighthearted reports that hardly strike me as journalism are not the sort of thing that satisfies long-term encyclopedic importance or a historical impact on society for this goat, and most assuredly not enough to justify Knowledge (XXG) participating in the public humiliation of the man that is more the subject of this article than the goat. Last I checked, not only was Knowledge (XXG) not a shameless tabloid, but some wise soul had actually written that into policy, as well.
1404:. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability though, but that is not a concern either as this article stands on its own merits, meeting and and exceeding our policy standards. Strange, yes, but this is something that most definitely passes the 100 year test, and is quirky enough that I wouldn't be totally shocked to see its inclusion in the likes of Encyclopedia Brittanica. You know, one of those
1343:. Chronicling ephemeral phenomena like this has traditionally been one of Knowledge (XXG)'s fortes. On BBC or the Guardian people can read about this as 'funny news of the day'. Here they can read about this and then e.g. browse categories with similar things, getting some context. Make sure that the article treats the person involved appropriately, certainly, but the goat can be kept.
1719:- It might be grotesque, agreed, but if it hadn't been for the verifiable facts in the article, I would have believed that it is an urban myth, if I would come across it at some billboard press magazine or sensational and unreliable website. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia that collects verifiable facts, isn't it? Is it a notable fact? You bet. --
1852:, notable goat, referenced sufficiently. I believe the original article was in 2004, and 3 years later, a further news story appeared. That is sufficient evidence of long-lasting media attention. There are many "news-worthy" topics that don't get articles 3 weeks after they took place, yet we have articles on them on Knowledge (XXG).
1080:
up stories about random individuals that are not notable at all, but instead got their misfortune covered by a major news outlet. News services could care less about the person affected, as long as people read their article on it. Would you create an article on Angel
Aguilar, just because his death was covered by Reuters (
2005:
an indiscriminate collection of information, and not an archive of water-cooler stories that got emailed around. The "obituary" was described as a joke, and the naming "Rose" was described as a joke. This is not a jokebook (My Pet Goat?) She had a kid before she died. Was her "husband" assumed to be
1833:
Yes tony, you are correct, NOT is a policy, Notability is a guideline. But this has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, except that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we shouldn't just be deleting articles because we don't like them. this goat clearly passes all of the sections in
1599:
The main point is that the goat itself is not notable (the article is named after the goat), the story is notable only because of media coverage. Since the goat is dead, the article will never rise above stub class, this is wholly unencyclopedic to have an article on a name of a goat assigned by the
1223:
I prefer to deal with things like these on a case-by-case basis. Drawing a specific line would be, in my mind, a bad thing, due to the need for guidelines to be very flexible. Notability is one of those things that can't be defined by a single guideline. Instead, notability must be judged by debates,
1079:
No, my reason for deletion is "Nowhere near being notable". Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have a serious problem with press coverage dictating notability: News services will pick up any story that they think will get attention. In doing so, they end up picking
1953:
Okay, sure. That policy does apply here. Just like
Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. This goat is not a dictionary entry, nor is this goat something that has been in the news for a brief period of time. The goat had news references spanning 3 years. That doesn't really qualify as a "brief period
1551:
response and actually looking at the article ... yes, this goat is notable. That a goat is more notable than myself is perhaps a somewhat depressing thought, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. I don't think refocusing the article to be about the goatsex is necessarily a good idea (as it
668:
The fact that the story has retained traction - coverage has lasted over a year - is enough to distinguish it from the majority of fleeting news stories. The article meets the policies and guidelines, so the real question is whether we want to allow room on WP for this kind of light-hearted fare.
1099:
guideline is the primary notability criterion. If anyone would like to follow policy, they should use that. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Reuters is reliable, but it isn't enough. A Reuters death
1704:
It's not really what I call a 'short burst' though. I was frequently popping in and out of the 'most read' section of the BBC News site for over a year, and the story was spread over a year with an obituary. How often do you get an obituary for an 'and finally' story - an obituary about the GOAT,
1270:
I'm afraid you come across as time-wasting. "News sources don't care about what they publish" is an absurd assertion, clearly they do, otherwise, the newspapers would be filled with the first million digits of pi. The BBC will not print that my son had his birthday party yesterday for instance,
766:
Your argument appears to boil down to two main points. The first is the "it's a fad" argument, which I've addressed, above. The second is "it's humiliating to the person involved, which I must admit gives me more pause. To be quite honest, I never quite know how to interpret that bit of policy.
573:
I did read the page, and it's clear to me that my original reply ("if a subject passes the notability guidelines at any point in time, it is notable, and remains so indefinitely") is 100% founded in policy. Our job is to determine whether it passes the notability guidelines, not to speculate on
939:
And what about the poor goat? Did anybody ever ask the goat if the goat's humiliation should be protected under BLP? Are we not showing insensitivity towards the poor goat and should give it the benefit of the utmost sensitivity towards it plight? FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE
909:
You don't see how
Knowledge (XXG) plastering the name of the man that was publicly humiliated after having sex with a goat on a top 10 website and turning what would have been a short-lived fad into an article that already is and probably always will be the top Google result for his name could
1739:
BLP requires sourcing. This is sourced. If someone wanted to edit it to remove the proper names (the name of the owner, and the initial of the husband; the goat does not fall under BLP), I would think that faintly silly, since they're in the sources; but deleting it is political correctness.
1570:
The goat itself is not notable, and is a (hoax?) name established by the western media, the actual event can be mentioned in an article about bestiality. Delete this and merge into another article as it provides little context on its own. Are we going to mention every case of bestiality?
1757:
I noticed earlier today that the original 'man marries goat' article was in the top 5 most emailed stories on the BBC News website. This was the original story, and those emailing the story would not be aware that the goat has since died, but it is clearly of very long-term interest.
1100:
coverage doesn't count for "significant", WP:N elaborates "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." Multiple sources is the WP:N guide. If you've got a problem with that, you should bring it up there.
923:
The BBC is also a top 10 (or at least, very highly ranked) website, and is the 2nd Google result for his name, and probably always will be, unless himself or someone with the same name does something notable. I don't really think
Knowledge (XXG) is making the issue worse.
1247:
Deletion request is invalid, 'it's a goat for pete's sake' is not a reason to delete an article. Close deletion request pending user actually coming up with a coherent reason for deletion. Current argument runs to 'not notable because it's a goat'. Completely useless.
1257:
My comment below the nomination comes to "Read this article and come to your own conclusion". This goat isn't notable, because news sources don't care about what they publish. If they can get readers, then they'll tell the people the random stories they want to hear.
758:
arguments. "It's a goat" is a fallacious argument because we have (justified, uncontroversial, stable) articles about far more trivial objects. "It's an
Internet fad" is fallacious because we have (justified, uncontroversial, stable) articles about Internet fads, see
899:
BLP does apply, because the article contains biographical material about a living person, but it also happens to be 100% BLP-compliant, as far as I can see. I don't even see how this could be debated (though I've learned never to underestimate
Wikipedian creativity)
1480:. There aren't too many notable goats. Rose though happens to be an exception, as shown by the massive news coverage covering her marriage and untimely demise, her life and times if you will. Rose lived, she loved, she achieved international fame.
330:, and I see no compelling reason to delete. Yes, it's a bit tabloid and "News of the weird", but the references demonstrate a continuing interest. It meets the policies and guidelines, and I think it's OK for WP to have a playful side too.--
1483:. Our job is to chronicle that existence impartially, with all the savoir faire wikipedians bring to their excellent bios of our animal friends. Frankly, I detect a strange species bias in some of the comments here. We need to fight that. --
1963:
Other than the initial newsbreak, its subsequent rehashings of the same story, and the humorous obituary that followed a year later, this news event is at best a blip on the radar. I would categorize it as both brief and unsubstantial.
563:
Well stop and think. What the press note today is not necessarily notable in any enduring sense. Then read what you linked to, because it says "a burst of news coverage about a subject does not provide objective evidence of long-term
1899:
A couple of questions. you say that this is "pure newscruft" but we don't have any policies saying "newscruft" isn't allowed. Also, what makes you think that the goat and the marriage are not encyclopedic. Could you please clarify?
1532:
paper. I think having a seperate article for each of the pokemon is overkill, but does it hurt us having them? No. Who cares if some goat gets an article? Does somehow covering more of human knowledge make wikpiedia worse somehow?
626:
separate major media outlets. Certainly, Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't include everyhing that makes it into a newspaper. But insisting that something is non-notable after it's been covered in the BBC, the Times, Fox News,
1307:. I happen to disagree with Sean William as to this particular article, but I see no signs that this was a bad faith nomination or designed to make a point. The article falls into one of the gray areas under
716:, and it has an article. I'm open to revising my opinion if anyone comes up witzh a better reason than "it's a goat", and "it's an Internet fad", since we have articles on both animals and Internet fads. --
1431:
Yeah, even if nothing else, there'll be stupid trivia questions like "Who was the only goat to have been legally married to a human?" or something like that. I'd say be prepared to eat your user page.
437:
The reason why I made the redirect is that all information in Tombe's article is included here. I just felt uneasy with Tombe's article stating nothing but he married a goat because he boned it. Btw,
1006:
Yes, the written form of the policy is somewhat out of date. I guess we can fix that. Note that my deletion reason above is not concerned with the BLP. However there may be BLP concerns. --
1280:
News sources will publish whatever will get them readers. If they think that goat sex will attract attention, then they'll write about it. Read the article, and come to your own conclusion.
855:, not the other way around. As far as I know, there are no sources discussing whether the marriage was in accordance with the goat's wishes, or whether she was coerced into wedlock :) --
801:. One of the most read stories in the history of the BBC News website, that is certainly noteworthy. However, I think consensus is needed whether or not the article should be here or in
1923:, relating to News reports. "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." I think that
1556:), but it's worth considering. However, I see no merit in the arguments for deletion. "It's a goat, for Pete's sake" is a good first reaction, but an inadequate deletion rationale. --
1070:, which it clearly passes via the primary notablity criterion. (BBC obit for one, heck, even the BBC obit is probably notable, as the obit probably has substantial press coverage).
596:
there is: I posit that any peson (well, entity) with a BBC obit is notable enough for
Knowledge (XXG). Is there even a single counter-example, other than the subject in question? --
1680:: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.". Encyclopedias record things of
1580:
Are you saying that no case of bestiality could ever warrant an article? I definitely think it's inappropriate to list every case of bestiality, but I do believe in the primary
130:
Not saying you're necessarily wrong that this should be deleted but you should present an actual argument - not just "it's a goat". We have a whole category of stuff like that.
517:. Internet phenoms are so flash in the pan that honestly, I don't think most of them deserve inclusion. Notability? On a "light news of the day" part of a newspaper, maybe. --
669:
My feeling is that we should, if the content meets our criteria; we can take a harder line against the stuff that is less well sourced or more obviously a flash in the pan.--
402:
that is either a miracle of dry humor or a obtuse result of overly conscientious reporting: "Since last year, the wedded goat has now produced a kid; but not a human one." -
110:
1873:
as pure newscruft. Although publicized, the incident may be considered notable in an "Odd News of the Week" way, but the goat and her "marriage" are not encyclopedic.
475:- Multiple independent sources are cited to demonstrate the goat's notability. I'm not really sure which notability guideline the goat falls under (no one's yet written
1499:
guideline is. Per wikipedia's policies this is notable an obvious keep. Per a better policy, probably not. But unfortunately, people who have attempted to amend
1618:
1148:
when the BBC runs your obituary... you're notable... As odd as it may be for a goat to have a biography... it did get media coverage. If the main character for
838:
Well, obviously, because it's an article about a goat who got caught having sex with a man and was forced to marry him. It doesn't come more notable than that.
733:
Neither of those were not an argument, and I think I am a someone. Could you give more of a response to legitimate concens than dismissing them like that?
395:, but unfortunately the wiki's coverage of African topics is pitiful and such an article doesn't yet exist. I also can't resist repeating a line from the
644:
Yes, but news services are lazy. They crib and copy. That a 'sex with goat' story got grabbed by the press networks is neither surprising nor notable.--
1378:
as one of the strengths of
Knowledge (XXG) so I'm probably not the only one who thinks of it like that. Which doesn't mean you're wrong, of course.
1371:
1421:
You sincerely think this will pass the 100 year test? Or show up in a regular encyclopedia? If either of those happen I will eat my user page.
653:
That's a fair point. I'm now ambivalent on the issue. I feel that this goat is right on the edge of
Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. --
376:
1821:
1978:
1941:
1887:
1584:
criterion, essentially being "newsworthy = notable". It makes sense for so many reasons. Do you have a criterion that's better somehow?
1511:(already the case with most list deletions). The answer is not running these AFDs. The answer is amending the notability guideline. --
631:
the Daily Mail (which, admittedly, is a tabloid) seems like just being hard-headed. The subject matter is obviously absurd, but so is
502:
17:
1528:. Can you propose something better? So what if some articles get included that wouldn't get mentioned otherwise. Knowledge (XXG) is
1022:
Passes BLP, WP:N, NPOV, and every other policy. There's no reason to delete this. If someone wants these kinds of articles deleted
2006:
the father under
Sudanese law? Was the rape a crime of passion, or was he just trying to get his neighbor's goat? Also agree with
1915:
Newscruft has already been cited above as a reason for deletion. Although I recognize it's not a policy, it closely ties in with
785:-- even if there are more famous goats, this doesn't mean that this one should not be memorialised, for future generations. --
83:
78:
87:
483:, i.e. multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. I will wikify the page to introduce inline citations, however.
1693:
1481:
1401:
1375:
70:
2029:
36:
605:
The BBC, as with most media outlets, routinely collects light-hearted human interest stories to run as the proverbial
246:
First, you know one, and her name is Rose. Second, yes, it absolutely does make it encyclopedic for our purposes. --
536:. If a subject passes the notability guidelines at any point in time, it is notable, and remains so indefinitely. --
609:
at the end of the news. That does not make them notable. Unless we are allowing the BBC to do our thinking for us.
373:
958:
no arguement for deletion has been given as "its a goat" does not cut it. PS this is entirely complient to BLP.
2028:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1646:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1508:
997:
485:
293:
277:
251:
227:
194:
168:
131:
1972:
1935:
1881:
1638:
1063:
1038:
Are you accusing me of disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to make a point? I assure you, that was not my intention.
1817:
1642:
1825:
1284:
1262:
1228:
1206:
1116:
1087:
1042:
1007:
984:
891:
830:
425:
406:
264:
181:
146:
121:
993:
945:
273:
247:
223:
190:
164:
645:
614:
584:
565:
546:
506:
290:
2014:
1985:
1958:
1948:
1904:
1894:
1865:
1838:
1828:
1811:
1798:
1786:
1774:
1762:
1749:
1731:
1709:
1697:
1668:
1655:
1628:
1604:
1588:
1575:
1562:
1537:
1515:
1487:
1472:
1454:
1435:
1426:
1412:
1382:
1361:
1347:
1328:
1287:
1275:
1265:
1252:
1231:
1218:
1209:
1197:
1174:
1128:
1119:
1104:
1090:
1081:
1074:
1045:
1033:
1010:
1001:
987:
974:
962:
948:
928:
918:
904:
894:
882:
859:
842:
833:
821:
809:
789:
771:
741:
728:
682:
657:
648:
639:
617:
600:
587:
578:
568:
558:
549:
540:
523:
509:
493:
467:
447:
428:
409:
379:
357:
343:
318:
281:
267:
255:
241:
231:
217:
198:
184:
172:
149:
137:
124:
52:
49:
1759:
1272:
1249:
1745:
1726:
1520:
I really like the notability guideline. I think it's great, it makes so much sense. It neatly meshes
870:
Someone's gotta BLP this just for fun, because BLP obviously applies to dead goats. Other than that,
422:
403:
370:
369:
Coverage appears to be extensive and, perhaps most importantly, over a reasonably wide span of time.
177:
Do you want to write a biography on the goat? If you can't, then we shouldn't have an article on it.
1547:. I'll admit that my first reaction was: "A goat!? What the hell?" However, after overcoming my gut
1496:
1955:
1901:
1835:
1585:
1534:
1432:
1215:
1125:
1101:
1071:
1030:
1160:
the war hero dog gets an article... I cant see why this goat isnt notable enough for an article.
391:. I feel that this might make an amusing, and possibly illuminating, aside in an article such as
2007:
1966:
1929:
1875:
1322:
915:
786:
738:
676:
464:
337:
260:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid. If it got news coverage, we shouldn't be forced to include it.
1027:
1794:. Come on guys, this is just silly. If this warrants inclusion for notability, what doesn't?
222:
How many goats do you know that achieve international fame and get an obituary from the BBC? --
1558:
1281:
1259:
1225:
1203:
1191:
1168:
1113:
1084:
1039:
888:
827:
392:
261:
178:
143:
118:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1804:
1521:
1500:
476:
1180:
1149:
971:
959:
518:
74:
2002:
1920:
1916:
1553:
1529:
1504:
1447:
1312:
610:
287:
1741:
1720:
1397:
1153:
1525:
1507:
is not the answer here because it would quickly devolve into deletion discussions being
1858:
1665:
1409:
839:
818:
490:
442:
1677:
1581:
1308:
1109:
1067:
1023:
979:
Straightforward speedy under the biographies of living goats policy. Nah, seriously,
798:
592:
I'm not sure, and that's a much better argument than "it's a goat, for god's sake". I
533:
480:
327:
1512:
1379:
1344:
1317:
1059:
1055:
911:
802:
734:
708:
I don't understand why "it's a goat" is any sort of argument for non-notability. The
671:
460:
388:
352:
I agree the event may be notable, but how is the goat itself informative in any way?
332:
134:
399:
1808:
1771:
1706:
1687:
1652:
1601:
1572:
1451:
1184:
1161:
925:
901:
856:
806:
805:, the human involved in the incident, but we can leave that till after this AfD. --
768:
725:
717:
709:
654:
636:
597:
575:
555:
537:
315:
272:
The BBC is not a tabloid. We judge encyclopedicness by the sources available. --
212:
The goat sex may, perhaps, possibly have been notable, but not the goat, come on.
160:
104:
940:
GOATS??? :D (Sorry, am in a silly mood at the moment, but you may log this as a
2011:
1625:
1422:
1357:
1202:
Just because other crap exists doesn't mean that this pile of excrement should.
606:
418:
353:
237:
213:
66:
58:
1054:
because you didn't provide a valid reason for deleting. Do you also think that
1050:
Your only reason for deleting the article is that She's a goat. This should be
1548:
1495:
yet another test case that demonstrates how incredibly crippled and inane the
1214:
So, could you please tell us what you think should be the bar for inclusion?
1853:
1795:
1484:
1469:
992:
Note that BLP does not advocate the removal of sourced, neutral material. --
887:
Uh, how about the guy who had sex with the goat? Is he not a living person?
875:
142:
In my opinion, people should view the article and make their own decision.
754:
I agree that they are both arguments, which is why I showed that they are
117:
Nowhere near being notable. It's a goat, for Pete's sake. Prod contested.
1783:
1315:, and reasonable people can disagree about how those principles apply.--
760:
720:
08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Difficult issue, I'm right on the fence here.
632:
312:
1183:
gets a freaking article... do I need to even finish that thought?
1066:, and other articles be deleted too? We have a policy, it's called
1921:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1157:
2022:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1649:
we already cover. BBC obituary establishes notability for me.
554:
That's not an argument. Please try to remain constructive. --
1834:
WP:NOT. So your arguments, though correct, are meaningless.
944:
that a long AfD over this is just plain silly in itself.)
1705:
noless? This is more than a simple amusing news item. --
583:
Is there 'objective evidence of long-term notability"?--
163:. It's possibly one of the most notable goats ever. --
1356:
What you perceive as a forte, I perceive as a failing.
387:. Note the existence of the largely duplicate article
159:. "Nowhere near being notable" is patently false, the
100:
96:
92:
622:
Fair enough. But this brouhaha made it into at least
1339:
I still have enough of an inclusionist in me to say
479:) but it meets the primary notability criterion of
189:
I think we have a pretty viable start right now. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
417:, Zscout370 has redirected Mr. Tombe's article to
2032:). No further edits should be made to this page.
574:whether it will still be popular in 10 years. --
236:Zero. Does that make the goat encyclopedic? No.
1468:due to enduring popular and media notoriety. --
1400:, one of several fantastic articles we list at
503:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of Deceased Bovidae
847:Just a small correction: please note that the
817:absolutely. We definitely cannot delete this.
1641:, and probably more renowned than any of the
286:The goat was covered as news by The Guardian
8:
161:BBC wrote an obituary for it, for god's sake
1156:are notable enough to have articles... If
714:foreskin that probably does not even exist
1372:Knowledge (XXG):Why_Wikipedia_is_so_great
1370:We disagree, then, and that's all right.
1617:: This debate has been included in the
1503:are generally blocked by deletionists.
1112:is not policy. Don't treat it like one.
970:, per any of the other delete reasons.
295:. None of which are tabloid newspapers.
1803:Anything that fails the guidelines at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
910:possibly even maybe be a BLP issue?
1552:complicates matters with regard to
1637:. The most notable goat since the
635:. We're not here to judge that. --
24:
505:. No, seriously per Dmcdevit. -
1927:relates to this subject matter.
1782:, popular, notable, verifiable.
1678:WP:N#Notability is not temporary
1402:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles
1376:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles
534:WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary
1664:, notable, verifiable, etc. --
1619:list of News-related deletions
1179:Hell... if Paris Hilton's dog
1:
1770:it's all been said. Maaaaah!
874:per numerous media coverage.
326:. Presumptively notable per
1822:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
2049:
1448:not a regular encyclopedia
1224:which is why we have AfD.
292:, and The Daily Telegraph
2015:18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1986:18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1959:17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1949:16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1905:16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1895:14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1866:12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1839:16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1829:11:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1812:08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1799:08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1787:06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1775:00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1763:23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1750:22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1732:13:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1710:10:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1698:09:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1026:will have to be changed.
53:22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
2025:Please do not modify it.
1669:19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
1656:14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
1629:19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1605:08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1589:05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1576:01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1563:18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1538:05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1516:17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1488:17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1473:13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1455:15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1436:15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1427:13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1413:06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1383:09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1362:00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
1348:23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1329:22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1288:23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1276:22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1266:22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1253:22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1232:23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1219:22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1210:22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1198:22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1175:21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1129:22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1120:22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1105:22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1091:22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1075:21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1046:21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1034:21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1011:19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1002:19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
988:18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
975:18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
963:18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
949:18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
929:18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
919:18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
905:14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
895:14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
883:13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
860:17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
851:was forced to marry the
843:16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
834:12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
822:12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
810:12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
790:11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
772:09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
742:09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
729:11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
683:17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
658:11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
649:11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
640:11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
618:11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
601:09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
588:09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
579:09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
569:08:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
559:08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
550:08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
541:08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
524:08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
510:08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
494:08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
468:06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
448:06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
429:06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
410:05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
380:05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
358:05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
344:05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
319:01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
282:19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
268:01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
256:01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
242:01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
232:01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
218:01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
199:01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
185:01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
173:00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
150:23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
138:23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
125:23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1639:Three Billy Goats Gruff
1064:Three Billy Goats Gruff
132:Category:Famous animals
1683:long-term notability
1446:Knowledge (XXG) is
1396:. This reminds of
797:, blatantly passes
1807:. This doesn't. --
722:Neutral/Undecided.
1984:
1947:
1893:
1820:is a guideline.
1748:
1631:
1622:
1424:
1398:Cindy the Dolphin
1359:
1095:The current WP:N
1000:
446:
393:Marriage in Sudan
355:
280:
254:
239:
230:
215:
197:
171:
2040:
2027:
1981:
1975:
1970:
1969:
1944:
1938:
1933:
1932:
1890:
1884:
1879:
1878:
1863:
1856:
1744:
1690:
1623:
1613:
1423:
1408:encyclopedias.
1358:
1327:
1196:
1189:
1173:
1166:
996:
983:as newscruft. --
880:
681:
492:
488:
445:
354:
342:
276:
250:
238:
226:
214:
193:
167:
108:
90:
34:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2030:deletion review
2023:
1979:
1973:
1965:
1942:
1936:
1928:
1888:
1882:
1874:
1862:
1859:
1854:
1742:Septentrionalis
1696:
1688:
1647:fictional goats
1626:John Vandenberg
1316:
1194:
1185:
1171:
1162:
876:
670:
486:
484:
331:
311:by all means.
248:batdlydrawnjeff
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2046:
2044:
2035:
2034:
2018:
2017:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1868:
1860:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1789:
1777:
1765:
1752:
1734:
1713:
1712:
1701:
1700:
1692:
1671:
1659:
1632:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1565:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1509:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1490:
1475:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1416:
1415:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1365:
1364:
1351:
1350:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
994:badlydrawnjeff
977:
965:
953:
952:
951:
946:216.201.119.71
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
826:Why can't we?
812:
792:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
764:
747:
746:
745:
744:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
642:
613:a newspaper.--
527:
526:
512:
496:
470:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
443:User:Zscout370
441:this article.
432:
431:
382:
363:
362:
361:
360:
347:
346:
321:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
284:
274:badlydrawnjeff
224:badlydrawnjeff
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
191:badlydrawnjeff
165:badlydrawnjeff
154:
153:
152:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2045:
2033:
2031:
2026:
2020:
2019:
2016:
2013:
2009:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1987:
1982:
1976:
1968:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1945:
1939:
1931:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1906:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1891:
1885:
1877:
1872:
1869:
1867:
1864:
1857:
1851:
1848:
1840:
1837:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1824:is policy. --
1823:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1788:
1785:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1769:
1766:
1764:
1761:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1738:
1735:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1711:
1708:
1703:
1702:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1685:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1606:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1590:
1587:
1583:
1582:WP:Notability
1579:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1463:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1330:
1326:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:Domestic goat
1057:
1056:Bill the Goat
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
990:
989:
986:
982:
978:
976:
973:
969:
966:
964:
961:
957:
954:
950:
947:
943:
938:
930:
927:
922:
921:
920:
917:
913:
908:
907:
906:
903:
898:
897:
896:
893:
890:
886:
885:
884:
881:
879:
873:
869:
861:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
841:
837:
836:
835:
832:
829:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
813:
811:
808:
804:
803:Charles Tombe
800:
796:
793:
791:
788:
787:62.25.109.196
784:
781:
780:
773:
770:
765:
762:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
743:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
702:
701:
684:
680:
678:
673:
667:
659:
656:
652:
651:
650:
647:
643:
641:
638:
634:
630:
625:
621:
620:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
581:
580:
577:
572:
571:
570:
567:
564:notability"--
562:
561:
560:
557:
553:
552:
551:
548:
544:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
521:
516:
513:
511:
508:
504:
500:
497:
495:
491:
489:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
462:
458:
455:
449:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
427:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
401:
398:
394:
390:
389:Charles Tombe
386:
383:
381:
378:
375:
372:
368:
365:
364:
359:
356:
351:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
339:
334:
329:
325:
322:
320:
317:
314:
310:
307:
294:
291:
288:
285:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:
266:
263:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
240:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
220:
219:
216:
211:
208:
207:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
186:
183:
180:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
151:
148:
145:
141:
140:
139:
136:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2024:
2021:
1998:
1924:
1870:
1849:
1826:Tony Sidaway
1791:
1779:
1767:
1754:
1736:
1727:
1725:<sac: -->
1721:
1716:
1682:
1681:
1673:
1661:
1650:
1634:
1614:
1567:
1559:Black Falcon
1557:
1544:
1492:
1477:
1465:
1405:
1393:
1340:
1320:
1304:
1282:Sean William
1260:Sean William
1244:
1226:Sean William
1204:Sean William
1186:
1163:
1145:
1114:Sean William
1096:
1085:Sean William
1051:
1040:Sean William
1019:
1008:Tony Sidaway
985:Tony Sidaway
980:
967:
955:
941:
889:Sean William
877:
871:
852:
848:
828:Sean William
814:
794:
782:
755:
721:
713:
710:Holy Prepuce
704:
703:
674:
628:
623:
593:
519:
514:
498:
472:
456:
438:
414:
396:
384:
366:
335:
323:
308:
289:, The Times
262:Sean William
209:
179:Sean William
156:
144:Sean William
119:Sean William
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1816:Not quite.
1760:87.74.13.55
1273:84.9.39.232
1250:84.9.39.232
1245:Speedy keep
1052:Speedy Kept
1020:Strong Keep
972:Adam Bishop
960:Hypnosadist
607:Dead donkey
545:Bullshit.--
532:Please see
520:Woohookitty
419:Rose (goat)
67:Rose (goat)
59:Rose (goat)
1954:of time".
1818:Notability
1746:PMAnderson
1666:Myles Long
1549:speciesist
1497:WP:NOTABLE
1181:Tinkerbell
756:fallacious
1410:RFerreira
1374:mentions
1150:Mister Ed
840:AndyJones
819:AndyJones
397:Juba Post
1925:strongly
1919:in that
1513:JayHenry
1318:Kubigula
1028:WP:POINT
912:Dmcdevit
735:Dmcdevit
672:Kubigula
461:Dmcdevit
333:Kubigula
111:View log
1809:Darksun
1805:WP:NOTE
1772:Johnbod
1755:Comment
1707:Darksun
1689:akuyume
1653:DeLarge
1602:Bleh999
1573:Bleh999
1522:WP:NPOV
1501:WP:NOTE
1493:Comment
1452:Darksun
1305:Comment
1187:ALKIVAR
1164:ALKIVAR
1124:Sorry.
942:Comment
926:Darksun
902:Ashenai
857:Ashenai
807:Darksun
769:Ashenai
761:AYBABTU
726:Ashenai
718:Ashenai
655:Ashenai
637:Ashenai
633:AYBABTU
598:Ashenai
594:believe
576:Ashenai
556:Ashenai
538:Ashenai
477:WP:GOAT
385:Comment
374:megalon
84:protect
79:history
50:W.marsh
2012:Edison
2003:WP:NOT
1999:Delete
1917:WP:NOT
1871:Delete
1792:Delete
1730:.oOo.
1676:, per
1674:Delete
1643:famous
1568:Delete
1554:WP:BLP
1530:WP:NOT
1505:WP:IAR
1406:"real"
1380:Haukur
1345:Haukur
1313:WP:NOT
1154:Lassie
1097:policy
981:delete
968:Delete
611:WP:NOT
515:Delete
499:Delete
487:Walton
457:Delete
439:delete
423:Banyan
404:Banyan
400:update
309:Delete
210:Delete
135:Haukur
88:delete
2008:María
1974:habla
1967:María
1956:McKay
1937:habla
1930:María
1902:McKay
1883:habla
1876:María
1836:McKay
1780:Keep'
1586:McKay
1535:McKay
1526:WP:RS
1524:with
1433:McKay
1216:McKay
1158:Sadie
1126:McKay
1102:McKay
1072:McKay
1031:McKay
878:Grue
712:is a
705:Keep.
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
2001:per
1980:migo
1943:migo
1889:migo
1855:Neil
1850:Keep
1796:Xihr
1768:Keep
1737:Keep
1717:Keep
1662:Keep
1635:Keep
1615:Note
1545:Keep
1485:JJay
1478:Keep
1470:Itub
1466:Keep
1394:Keep
1341:keep
1323:talk
1311:and
1309:WP:N
1152:and
1146:Keep
1110:WP:N
1068:WP:N
1024:WP:N
998:talk
956:Keep
872:keep
853:goat
815:Keep
799:WP:N
795:Keep
783:Keep
677:talk
624:four
501:per
481:WP:N
473:Keep
426:Tree
421:. -
407:Tree
377:2000
371:Maxa
367:Keep
338:talk
328:WP:N
324:Keep
313:+sj
278:talk
252:talk
228:talk
195:talk
169:talk
157:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
2010:.
1977:con
1940:con
1886:con
1784:bbx
1722:roy
1645:or
1624:--
1621:.
1083:)?
849:man
646:Doc
629:and
615:Doc
585:Doc
566:Doc
547:Doc
507:Doc
415:FYI
109:– (
1686:.
1651:--
1450:--
1062:,
1058:,
924:--
900:--
767:--
724:--
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1983:)
1971:(
1946:)
1934:(
1892:)
1880:(
1861:╦
1694:C
1325:)
1321:(
1285:@
1263:@
1229:@
1207:@
1195:☢
1192:™
1172:☢
1169:™
1117:@
1088:@
1043:@
916:t
914:·
892:@
831:@
763:.
739:t
737:·
679:)
675:(
465:t
463:·
340:)
336:(
316:+
265:@
182:@
147:@
122:@
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.