Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose (goat) (2nd nomination)

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 keep--Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rose (goat)

Rose (goat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. Tabloid news. The jokes over, the press has had their fun. No lasting notability here, just some editors having a sense of humor during a slow news day. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep International press coverage over two years is a clear sign of notability, all the more so because this is a goat. Being an animal does not disqualify notability. See: See Category:Famous animals. And notability is not temporary. Dekkappai (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, both for the notable goat itself and the public interest (which was itself the subject of BBC coverage). Huon (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The AFD is improper since no policy reason for deletion is offered, the article's author has not been notified and the prior AFD is not listed. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment The first !vote is from the nominator, so we can assume that's the deletion reason being offered (lack of notability). It's not required to notify the creator of the article, it's just considered polite to do so. As to the prior nom not being listed, WP:SOFIXIT.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Politeness is not optional - it is a policy which the nomination breaches. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL? Looks like the nom kept the tone of conversation at a non-vitriolic level... not following procedure to a T isn't a crime, and WP:AGF should perhaps apply :) Gracenotes^T § 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just because it's in the news it doesnt create notability nor it deserves an article. Especially a goat! then why don't we create an article on Matthew and Kristen Shifrin for example? Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see how anything has changed since the original, extensive, afd discussion. Notability is not temporary, furthermore, trivia is not a barrier to notability (see, for example Paris Hilton) :) nb. no admonishments for the WP:OSE ref please. Debate (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OSE is not a policy. It's simply an essay Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Surely the fact that it has been so widely reported in the press, and was a popular story at the time, makes it notable? If worldwide attention and popularity are not part of the criteria for notability, then why do we have articles on popstars and celebrities? Juice07 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Well, he got his goat! This is great for the syndicated column News of the Weird, but the WP-worthy notability seems lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Dekkappai. I doubt that our standards have changed all that much since the last AfD, which I remember fondly. Maxamegalon2000 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article about the dolphin that married a woman was just deleted.[1] This is similar and I feel the same way. I consider this story about this goat WP:RECENTISM, a tabliod story and something found in "weird news". Hardly an encyclopedia article. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weird happenings and curiosities are highly encyclopedic as there are encyclopedias about nothing else including an Encyclopedia of Extremely Weird Animals. Inclusion of topics is not determined by personal taste but by references to sources. The nomination and !votes such as yours which ignore the sources and are instead based upon personal feelings should be discounted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per the many arguments in the previous discussion. AndyJones (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No rationale for deletion given in nomination, only a vote. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable, plenty of press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, multiple (10 from 7 publications) non-trivial (each has goat as subject) reliable (reputable newspapers/magazines) sources. Gracenotes^T § 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable, plenty of news coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2008 (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.