Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counting coo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counting coo

NN, D. ComCat 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Valid topic. Mis-spelled. "Counting coup" was a well-known practice of the Plains Indians. Sort of like touch football, but much more serious. Either move to Counting coup and hope for expansion, or redirect to Native American fighting styles (see "Plains-Prairies.") Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC) P. S. an A9 "books" search turns up an entire book called Counting Coup and Cutting Horses: Intertribal Warfare on the Northern Plains, 1738-1889 and another entitled Counting Coup : Becoming a Crow Chief on the Reservation and Beyond.

P. P. S. I believe it must be familiar to readers of Western novels. The same A9 search shows me that a recent Robert Parker novel, Appaloosa, a James Patterson novel, Roses are Red, and a Tom Clancy novel, Debt of Honor, all mention the phrase, in some cases without much explanation. Clancy just assumes you know what it means: "Some of his people had to be counting coup in a big way, full of themselves in the way of fighter pilots who had done the job and lived to tell the tale." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

P. P. P. S. It's in the dictionary: Noun... 3. Among certain Native American peoples, a feat of bravery performed in battle, especially the touching of an enemy's body without causing injury. Idiom: count coup Among certain Native American peoples, to ceremoniously recount one's exploits in battle. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• strong keep (or move/redirect). I'd be surprised if there isn't already a good redirect target for this (and counting coup) on WP. — brighterorange (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move and redirect to counting coup as well known practice which has become a fairly common phrase. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely Keep per Dpbsmith.--Newyorktimescrossword 05:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Notable cultural practice, punishing it for being a stub is just systemic bias. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect the problem was not that it was a stub but that it was misspelled. If you haven't heard of it and you searched for it as "counting coo" you might get the impression it wasn't important. Although rather to my surprise the misspelling gets 181 Google hits suggesting that Counting coo should be left in place as a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The text of the article establishes its importance beyond any shadow of a doubt. An extremely low google count might lead one to believe that it was a hoax or some sort of misinformation, but that's not why it was nominated for deletion. I can't really imagine that there's any basis for this nomination other than Comcat's habit of trying to delete any short article he happens to come across. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think we should do the nominator the courtesy of assuming that the expressed reason for deletion is the real reason for deletion. And I do not think the identity of the nominator should factor into the discussion, which ought to be about the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Ritual warfare, which is missing. Pilatus 13:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and do something about AFD Spamming. Trollderella 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but correct spelling. --TantalumTelluride 21:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator made no effort whatsoever to support this nomination. Bryan 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed my vote, as promised elsewhere, I'm sticking with "keep". In what way could this subject possibly be considered "non-notable?" This is a fantastic example of establishing dominance through ritual combat. Bryan 05:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the context of some of these remarks. The nomination was unnecessarily curt, but valid. It happened to be mistaken, that's all. It's not at all clear to me that the misspelling should be kept. I don't think the misspelled phrase "counting coo" is particularly notable. An AfD nomination is a request for a discussion. If it were reasonable to expect nominators to be infallible, we could just expand the speedy criteria. The article as submitted was badly written, cited no sources, and could easily be mistaken for something that should be deleted. The nominator made a mistake. What's the big deal? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move/redirect to Counting coup. -- Arwel (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and move to Counting coup

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.