Talk:Cosmo the Cougar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cosmo the Cougar has a significant affiliation with Brigham Young University and is therefore a part of WikiProject Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate in this project, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 311005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Is there any way to nominate someone to be blocked? Whoever is putting up those comments about Cosmo being homosexual please explain yourself or stop. Epachamo 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting TOTALLY sick of reverting homophobic edits on this useless page. I will either merge the useful information and redirect to Brigham Young University, or propse this page for deletion again. This is no more worthy of a page than any other sports mascot for any club, school, university, team in the world, and I don't see many of them on Wikipedia. Budgiekiller 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess there aren't very many, but there is a list of them (see the category I added), and a decent number have live articles, similar to the Cosmo article (someone has declared most of them stubs — stubs are whole different problem, I think).  I'd leave Cosmo here, and it definitely doesn't fit in the main BYU article. — John 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a merge is reasonable. There's not enough here to warrant an article. Friday (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I too am sick of reverting edits, however, its not like there is a limit on space on wikipedia. There is no reason NOT to have as many articles on as many different subjects as possible. Epachamo 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "nothing should be deleted" arguments are very compelling when we're talking about a specific article. There are reasons why more content is not always better. WP:V, WP:NOT, and other policies all apply. To me, this is about context: let's mention the mascot in the context of BYU athletics- he's meaningless outside of that context. So, to me it makes sense to not have a seperate article here. I don't see how it could be true that Cosmo doesn't fit in the BYU article- that's exactly where he fits. He's a minor detail of a larger topic. Friday (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read WP:NOT you will see a wonderful section titled "Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia." I recommend it. Just because there isn't much content now, does not mean there can't be later. Reading a couple BYU articles on cosmo [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] show that Cosmo is an important part and has a rich history at BYU and might be enlightening in showing that this IS a viable article, with the potential to be a little more informational. The BYU article is a very long article already (23.74 KB see Wikipedia:Article_size) . Also, many other colleges DO have there own wikipedia articles about there mascots [9], Viewing some of those might reveal some ways in which this article could improve. Epachamo 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. All I was saying is, based on what's here right now, it'd be better right now for this to be part of a larger article. I'd rather see us with an article on BYU athletics as a whole than on the specific mascot. The current content here doesn't tell me anything that's not true of college mascots in general. Given the amount of content we have right now, I think he's already adequately covered in the BYU article, where it mentions the name of the mascot. I just don't think hypothetical future expansion is a good reason to avoid merging this in the short-term. Friday (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll tell you what, give me a couple of days and I will try and expand this article. Then it wouldn't be "hypothetical future expansion". Epachamo 17:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I don't think this article is actively bad or anything, just that it'd be better with more context. I tend to prefer a smaller number of larger articles over a larger number of smaller articles, but I suppose people have different opinions on that. Friday (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole article and made it more valid, and will add a bit more later. I will try to get a couple of pictures up soon of the Cosmobile, but I don't have ANY of Cosmo. If anyone has a spare picture of Cosmo, it would be nice. I think it is long enough now to warrant its own article. Was there any other objection anybody had to deleting this article besides it's length? Can we unnomminate the article for deletion? Epachamo 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for merging into the BYU article, but I'm happy that you've done a great job of turning it from a homophobic target into a genuine article and unless anyone has any complaints, I'll remove the merge notice from here and its respective partner from the BYU page. Besides the original AFD which ended with no decision, I don't recall any other nomination for deletion. Budgiekiller 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Friday (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifying Information

While the new information on Before the Costume section is nice, unless it can be referenced, I don't think it should be in the article. Even if it is good, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. I also don't think a single name should be added to the past cosmo's without a reference. As an aside, can't we block the homobozo's IP address? Epachamo 04:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] still needs work

I just did a basic copy edit and removed some POV. There are still unsourced statements in there that may amount to personal opinion, or may be entirely made up. Jessicapierce 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)