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. I don't see a consensus to delete the article. While there are some suggestions that a merge might be preferable to keeping the article in its current location, that is a discussion for an article talk page, especially as the target is still under discussion.
Joyous! |
Talk01:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is a one-off event for 2022. Had it been the start of an annual event I would likely offer an opinion for retention. While there is a decent amount of significant, independent, reliable source coverage. the event per se needs to pass
WP:GNG in order to have place here. My opinion is that this is a GNG failure, despite garnering press coverage. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
20:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep because of the amount of RSes referenced. Clearly notable, and
notability is permanent, so even if the event no longer runs, it was once (and thus still is) notable. Just add a more prominent note that it was called off.
BhamBoi (
talk)
06:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I doubt, this one of momentary grapevine will hold, without any likely long term acceptance. But coat-rack reference to cow-cuddling from WaPo news article made me curious. For cow cuddling I could find an academic reference written by academic scholar Emily McGiffin. Chapter 4 Laudable Cow: Poetics of Human Cattle relationship Work:Bencke, Ida. Multispecies Storytelling in Intermedial Practices. United States, Punctum Books, 2022. pp page 93 is specific about Cow cuddling and as per book origin of the new (western interest) trend seems to have been attributed to Dutch origin.
Bookku (
talk)
07:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment:
WP:DEPTH says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)." and this event has feature length articles in major news magazines like
The Guardian and
TIME.
𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !09:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a notable event because it passes
WP:DEPTH.
WP:DEPTH says that "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)." and this event has feature length articles in major news magazines like The Guardian and Time.
𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !11:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Animal Welfare Board of India. This seems like a pretty obvious merge to me, and I'm surprised not to see other boldtext merge !votes. We have a very recent event and do not yet have an indication that there will be lasting significance. We also have a clear parent article for which the sourcing justifies inclusion. Merge, and if it receives lasting significance, spin the stand-alone article out later. As an aside, since the subsection about cow cuddling predating this event (which needs a source-based connection to this event, btw), makes me wonder if there's potential for an article on ~"cow cuddling" or "cow hugging". — Rhododendritestalk \\
13:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"WP Policy review": Though there was considerable social media and media coverage; so called supposed to be event was non–event (appeal withdrawn in hours and event just did not happen), most coverage was in form of Meme or coverage of Meme and social media stance, hence one of applicable discussion is
WP:Notability (memes) and , though WP community still does not have consensus over memes one good point mentioned over there is "The meme has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the meme itself, and which qualifies as a reliable source." Though considerable media coverage happened is clickbait and trivial to have an independent article as of now,
WP:SENSATIONAL states ".. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. .."
While mentioning
WP:DEPTH above learned co-wikipedian @𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖 seem to miss just next paragraph ".. Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. ..". Here in this case main event in context is
Valentine's Day in India. Unless and until some one owns up Cow-hug day in
WP:Future event it does not seem to create independent notability.
Merge into the Animal Welfare Board article or Valentine's Day in India article. There is considerable coverage, but it seems that coverage all takes place within the span of a single week or so.
WP:PERSISTENCE is relevant here: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(
talk,
contribs)
14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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. I don't see a consensus to delete the article. While there are some suggestions that a merge might be preferable to keeping the article in its current location, that is a discussion for an article talk page, especially as the target is still under discussion.
Joyous! |
Talk01:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is a one-off event for 2022. Had it been the start of an annual event I would likely offer an opinion for retention. While there is a decent amount of significant, independent, reliable source coverage. the event per se needs to pass
WP:GNG in order to have place here. My opinion is that this is a GNG failure, despite garnering press coverage. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
20:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep because of the amount of RSes referenced. Clearly notable, and
notability is permanent, so even if the event no longer runs, it was once (and thus still is) notable. Just add a more prominent note that it was called off.
BhamBoi (
talk)
06:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I doubt, this one of momentary grapevine will hold, without any likely long term acceptance. But coat-rack reference to cow-cuddling from WaPo news article made me curious. For cow cuddling I could find an academic reference written by academic scholar Emily McGiffin. Chapter 4 Laudable Cow: Poetics of Human Cattle relationship Work:Bencke, Ida. Multispecies Storytelling in Intermedial Practices. United States, Punctum Books, 2022. pp page 93 is specific about Cow cuddling and as per book origin of the new (western interest) trend seems to have been attributed to Dutch origin.
Bookku (
talk)
07:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment:
WP:DEPTH says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)." and this event has feature length articles in major news magazines like
The Guardian and
TIME.
𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !09:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a notable event because it passes
WP:DEPTH.
WP:DEPTH says that "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)." and this event has feature length articles in major news magazines like The Guardian and Time.
𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !11:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Animal Welfare Board of India. This seems like a pretty obvious merge to me, and I'm surprised not to see other boldtext merge !votes. We have a very recent event and do not yet have an indication that there will be lasting significance. We also have a clear parent article for which the sourcing justifies inclusion. Merge, and if it receives lasting significance, spin the stand-alone article out later. As an aside, since the subsection about cow cuddling predating this event (which needs a source-based connection to this event, btw), makes me wonder if there's potential for an article on ~"cow cuddling" or "cow hugging". — Rhododendritestalk \\
13:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"WP Policy review": Though there was considerable social media and media coverage; so called supposed to be event was non–event (appeal withdrawn in hours and event just did not happen), most coverage was in form of Meme or coverage of Meme and social media stance, hence one of applicable discussion is
WP:Notability (memes) and , though WP community still does not have consensus over memes one good point mentioned over there is "The meme has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the meme itself, and which qualifies as a reliable source." Though considerable media coverage happened is clickbait and trivial to have an independent article as of now,
WP:SENSATIONAL states ".. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. .."
While mentioning
WP:DEPTH above learned co-wikipedian @𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖 seem to miss just next paragraph ".. Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. ..". Here in this case main event in context is
Valentine's Day in India. Unless and until some one owns up Cow-hug day in
WP:Future event it does not seem to create independent notability.
Merge into the Animal Welfare Board article or Valentine's Day in India article. There is considerable coverage, but it seems that coverage all takes place within the span of a single week or so.
WP:PERSISTENCE is relevant here: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(
talk,
contribs)
14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
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.