Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding cow

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding cow

ATTENTION! If you came here because a post on Dave Barry's web log asked you to "do whatever it is that needs to be done", please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads, socks or hooves. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

"Exploding Cows" does not even seem to be a real issue and does not even seem to rise to the level of an urban myth. It seems as if this article was put up along with all the other animals. The subject just seems to be complete nonsense. ---Gothere 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree - this appears to be at least a valid urban myth, and may even have a basis in a real-world event. Given the linkages to a variety of games, etc., this seems to be a reasonably valid article. -----Lhedbor 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment snopes.com has never heard of it, however. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that it is "a reasonably valid article" and should not be deleted. It appears to be accurate and useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.221.52 (talk • contribs)
• While in no way endorsing the claim that this article might be useful, I will note that Dave Barry's blog has called for this article to be retained: http://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/2006/09/a_call_to_actio.html FlashSheridan 15:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since it seems that the source of "Exploding Cows" is a running gag for Dave Barry, maybe we would be better off adding it as a subsection to his entry & have the term Exploding Cows redirect to him... or we could just create a Wikipedia entry for every joke he comes up with.--Gothere 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Don't delete others' comments. Simply add your own. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is not a valid issue. It's not real. It's not even 'urban myth'. There is no reason to keep this since it serves no purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.32.212 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 15:38:54
• Comment If Dave Barry writes of exploding cows, then this topic does indeed serve a purpose. It becomes an anchor point for those who seek to research his works of comedy and parody. If we start deleting topics simply because someone thinks they are "pointless", then soon it cud lead Wikipedia into udder chaos. I say this: Let the exploding cow remain! (And if we attemtped to create an entry for every joke Mr. Barry comes up with, we would need to add at least 7 additional entries! ;) --Pirateboy 08:56, 27-September 2006 (PDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateBoy (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 15:59:59
• This is a valid article and should be retained. Exploding cows are a routine event, although not widely reported. This should really be left well enough alone. In fact, more research needs to be done into the subject of exploding cows and the wikipedia entry could even be expanded more broadly. --rbenjamin 27-Sept 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.227.90 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 16:07:53
• Comment Pirateboy is right, as I believe this so-called myth has gone past the tipping point. It behooves Wikipedia to maintain this entry, even if there is legitimate grounds to question its technical accuracy. As Mr. Barry might say: Burger! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanie theBlue (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 16:21:46
• I once had a girlfriend who lived in Canada whose cousin's best friend was killed by an exploding cow. True story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 17:13:45
• Comment This article does no harm. It's not hurting the site or anyone who uses it. If you believe it to be nonsense, just ignore it and be on your way instead of insisting on taking it down, for which there is no valid reason anyway.
  • Comment If an article is nonsense, then there is no reason to keep it. Leaving bad articles in the encyclopedia undermines its (admittedly already poor) credibility. If the encyclopedia knowingly includes nonsense, then it is a nonsense encyclopedia. Djcartwright 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• If we let individual's opinions decide which articles remain and which are deleted, Wiki would be in chaos, at least what would be left of it. I saw people arguing that a page on some aspect of physics (the specific one eludes my memory) needed to be taken down because it was "irrelevent."

  To those who consider this to be inappropriate, obscene, disgusting smut, let me remind you that many of Wiki's most viewed pages are lists of porn stars. This article is much more appropriate than any of those, yet this is the one that gets marked for deletion. This article also serves more of a purpose. It may just save some farmer's life by, say, teaching him not to light up a cigarette next to a cow that has just flatulated.71.100.4.176 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, borderline nonsense. --Nydas 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Retention should be automatic when the reason for deletion is it's "unencyclopedic". We don't need the userbox wars to carry over to other articles. It does go together with the other "exploding" articles too.Sct72 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Googles shows over a million hits for "Exploding cows". At a minimum it warrants a page for the extent of the urban myth developed around it. I agree a cross-reference to Dave Barry would be appropriate.
• Interestingly enough the article currently doesn't mention Dave Barry. If he is the only reason to keep it, than it must be Delete.128.6.78.69 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Please, Googling is not as easy as it may seem. "Exploding Cows" gives 4560 hits[1], some of them duplicates or related to the Wikipedia article, and most often only mentioned in passing. So the urban myth is clearly not so widespread, and does not deserve its own page here. Fram 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Exploding cows does not get a million hits of google, it gets 596 - [2] JASpencer 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has a fine reputation, on par with that of Encyclopedia Britannica. A study found that the two have similar numbers of errors. Just because something isn't normaly found in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. As long as the information is factual it should remain, no mater how "silly" it seems to some people.65.100.221.52 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Sarah
• Comment - If we could just cite a reputable source for the composition of cow fart, there shouldn't even be an argument about whether or not to keep this article. It would be a definite keeper! Knowing the composition of cow fart is very interesting stuff. For a budding young chemist, it could be a free potential source of a fun chemical mix for use in experiments. HeWhoE 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I note that the following guideline on Wikipedia's page regarding article deletion, and specifically under the heading of what not to delete: "Articles we are not interested in -- some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." Exploding cow is part of American culture, as are the familiar topics of most widely syndicated or published humorists and social commentators. Not because of Dave Barry per se, but because of the result wrought upon our culture, the article should stay. 68.160.254.170 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Avon
• Delete. No references or any other indication that this is a genuine practice. Article even calls it "alleged", but I don't see that this is even an urban legend of note. Cow tipping, on the other hand... TCC (talk) (contribs)
• Delete. Even the article itself says that it's untrue because of the lack of oxygen in the intestines of a cow, so it's obviouly nothing more than an urban myth. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It has a reference now. And I should point out that whether or not it is an urban myth is irrelevent. Wiki still has an article on "sasquatch." Why don't you go try to kill that article? Just think of this article as describing an urban myth instead of trying to prove it. And as a previous user already pointed out, just because some individuals don't like an article, doesn't mean it should be deleted; this is even in Wiki's official policy. It does you no harm, and I don't see why any of you should actually care enough to fight so vehemently for its deletion.71.100.4.176 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not one that's to the point. We all know that cows produce lots of methane; the question is do they explode if you light their farts? Your reference says no. "There are various urban legends about exploding cows, but none that we could corroborate." TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As I have previously said, there are many Wiki articles about things whose reality is in question or already disproved. The fact is that even if the exploding cow myth is not true, it has still had a very tangible influence in pop culture, as evidence by the article's list of media in which it has appeared.
• Keep If it's good enough for The Darwin Awards [3] and Seanbaby [4], it's good enough for me. Stev0 06:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Things like P-P-P-Powerbook are at least funny; this is just dumb. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep also per Stev0 above. Its an interesting possibility, stemming from a biologic phenomenon, but nonetheless a myth, which needs proper explanation for avoiding ignorant from believing deeply into such a myth. The inclusion of this article in an Encyclopedia is well justified, as it dispels the notion and explains proper rationale behind such thinking. EyeMD 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete cruft. Wikipedia is not something made up in school one day. Anomo 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nydas, Fram, and as Wikipedia not for made up stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• VERY strong vote for keep Because I agree with EyeMD, Stev0 and the anonymous person who posted at 02:07, 28 September 2006. This article should stay, if only to dispel a (possible) myth surrounding bovine flatulence. It may not be as serious an issue as, say, cardiovascular surgery or 19th-century Russian literature, but it's a quite valid one nonetheless. Wikipedia exists to answer questions. If we don't keep this article, that's one less answer we can provide. I do agree with cross-referencing it to the article on Dave Barry as well. Marialadouce 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the rhetorical question at hand is how did you even come accross this artical something must have brought you here isnt that validity enough?skexeaz 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Moo. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep The concept of exploding cows is sufficiently widespread to warrant an article, if only to eliminate misconceptions like the Exploding bird article. And furthermore, how is this even close to being deletion worthy when there are essay-length articles about anime series with far less cultural impact than the idea of an exploding cow? Chris Buckey 03:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Widespread? It has a mere 875 google hits for exploding cow and 635 for exploding cows [5][6]. For an Internet fad, that's pathetic. This is an order of magnitude less important than even obscure anime.--Nydas 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would also vote to keep this entry. Some of the beauty of Wikipedia is that there are articles on Shakespeare and articles on exploding cows.71.232.158.231 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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.