Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike the Headless Chicken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was speedy keep... I guess that's pretty clear! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike the Headless Chicken

Mike the Headless Chicken (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
Lloyd Olsen (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The article's legitimate reference was a broken link to the Guinness Book of World Records. I went to find the link manually through their page and through Google, with no luck. Indeed, searching for "headless chicken -mike" didn't turn up many results. Delete unless someone can turn up some legitimate evidence.

Note that I am also nominating Lloyd Olsen as it's pretty much an extension of this article. Brad Beattie (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The link to The Straight Dope article suggests that only 2/3rds of the chicken's head was cut off, but the pictures seem to show total decapitation. Is that an inconsistentcy or is my knowledge of poultry biology lacking? --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The pictures are right, but you are thinking of the neck/head region as a human has as opposed to how a chicken has. The actual decapitation was across the very back of the head, leaving (very likely) the parts of the brain needed for more automatic processes. Imagine you are decapitated but with the blade falling down through the back of your head behind the ears.Robovski 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable (if extremely odd) cultural phenomenon. The Straight Dope article shows that Mike has been covered in Life magazine as well as a Garrison Keillor book. I do however support a merge of the Lloyd Olsen article into Mike's article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Further research reveals a salon article celebrating Mike's holiday, and a documentary film availabe on DVD entitled Chick Flick: The Miracle Mike Story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, cool. So the question I have then is whether this is a hoax or not. If it is, I understand that it'll still be notable considering what you discovered there. If not, then I stand astounded. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I think the Straight Dope column puts to rest any possibility that it was a hoax: as Cecil writes, "This sort of thing evidently occurs fairly often. When Dear Abby ran a column on it a while back she got clippings and eyewitness reports about headless-but-living chickens from all over the country." So not only isn't it fake, it's not even unique or all that uncommon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • ...and besides that, Olsen charged 25 cents to see Mike and supposedly made $4500 a month for 18 months, quite a pretty penny in those days. By rough estimate, and counting paying customers only, that means at least 325,000 saw Mike up close and in person. There's a whole lot of eyewitnesses to Mike's realness out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's enough reliable evidence that a festival in Mike's honour exists, whether the story is true or not. However, in my opinion either the story should not be stated as fact or some reference to its truth should be found. --HarrisX 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mike has appeared in a book by Karl Kruszelnicki, who is nice enough to include full references in said books. In particular, his story has appeared in Life magazine (22 October 1945), and he's had a book written about him (Teri Thomas, The Official Mike the Headless Chicken Book - A 1940s Tale of Two Men and a Chicken), so I don't think WP:V is in any trouble here. And if anyone can track down either of those sources, they can be used to bolster the article and probably provide some evidence as to the truth of Mike's existence. Confusing Manifestation 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Weird but true, subject of several news items in it's day, rather notable. Robovski 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It is no hoax Konman72 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This article is not a hoax. Also, I Googled "Mike the Headless Chicken" and many results turned up relating to this chicken. - King Ivan 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the chicken and merge the farmer. Caknuck 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mike but verify first. Pcu123456789 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - of course - what a silly nomination - this is a really interesting piece. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 08:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mike has been researched and verified by many secondary sources, including Guinness, The Straight Dope, and Steve Silverman[1]. --Charlene 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the thing on Mike is true, it appeared in the Guinness and many other reliable places. The article is not a hoax, and a Google search tells it all, notable rooster. In the case of Lloyd, merge it to any appopriate article, or else delete it. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this article is clearly not a hoax as there are several reliable sources stating that it is true, so it should be kept. But merge Lloyd Olsen into this article. - # BROWNSAY SOMETHING!!! | 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mike, Redirect Lloyd. DCEdwards1966 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- for what it's worth now. I actually looked this article up a few months ago and it was extremely useful - mainly for the fact I didn't believe the story when it was mentioned on a TV programme. Bubba hotep 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Although this may be more of a reflection of what a sad bunch of people we are here in colorado, this story receives nearly annual coverage in major newspapers, and I believe there is now a festival 'Headless chicken days' MNewnham 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The Straight Dope has investigated the story and they reference a 1945 Life article about it. I have also heard about this and read Mike's story in more than one book (though I can't recall the titles, sorry). Even IF the story is not true the legend is common enough that it deserves an entry in Wikipedia. --six.oh.six 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Yes, what he said. I have certainly heard of the chicken as well, and even if it is a hoax, it is indeed a common cultural meme and should be kept. -Edlin2 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I hadn't heard of this before, but quite a good story, and a well-written article. Lankiveil 01:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep Well-known oddity. Kinda like a particularly famous internet meme, except of course he was around quite some time before the internet. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Per Edlin2 Armanalp 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Well-known story, strong support, endearing chicken. Shari 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's a true story about an important popular culture phenomenon. *jb 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — It's actually quite notable, and I've heard of this from numerous different sources. Poor chicken, though. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think at this point we can snowball this AFD. We've had a number of references added to the article and everything from Lloyd Olsen has already been merged. I think we're all in agreement here if we keep Mike and delete Lloyd? --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've seen this on the news multiple times over the years, so it's definitely notable. Xuanwu 09:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not a Hoax and after all Wikipedia is an encylopedia so people will be looking at this article. Dep. Garcia 15:14, 12 November 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.