Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator until consensus about solely local coverage comes his way. Bongo matic  03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The topic of this (charming and whimsical) article is non-notable. A Google news archive search for the artist finds nothing relevant to the cow, and, gnerates literally zero hits when searching for the artist and the name of the cow. The coverage cited is solely local. No evidence as to the notability of the topic has been offered. Note: This article has been up for deletion twice before (but I don't know how to make that nice little box) Bongo  matic  13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep...seems sourced to me...Rhinoracer (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Even makes into a Russian reference! (also all linked dictionaries) When something makes it into Russia, I trust is has reached notability. Collect (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this is a joke. This reference is to a Wikipedia mirror site. Bongo  matic  15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is the in-depth subject of multiple independent reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. WP:N doesn't and never has banned local coverage as examples of reliable sources establishing notability.  Some people have issue that such a piece of folk art can be notable, but in fact it is. --Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of folk art is notable. But the exclusively local nature of the coverage&mdash;especially given the great length of time this artwork has been around&mdash;demonstrates that truly independent coverage doesn't exist. See footnotes 5 and 6. Bongo  matic  16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're going with that. The Connecticut Post is truly independent of Glady the Swiss Dairy Cow.  If you'd like WP:NOTABILITY to be changed to not accept "local" secondary sources that are independent of topics as reliable sources then you need to make your case in the WP:N talk page, not try to push an agenda in an individual AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep though I'm usually in perfect agreement with Bongomatic. The article is well-sourced, even though these references are local--but there is no requirement that they not be; the cow seems notable enough to me. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep a piece of artwork wich has reached notability. Also a very interesting article. Warrington (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (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.