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, after seeing the artice expanded. As nominator, I now find this subject particularly interesting, and it has references now. --Dangherous 09:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow


One of my favourite pages I've AFDed for a long time. I doubt that Wikipedia is the place to have cows. I would write a satirical page I'm sorry, but we don't allow articles on models of cows, no matter how interesting they may be or WP:NOCOWS... Note to the closing admin. If it's deleted, please can you move the page to User:Dangherous/Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow - seriously, I'm looking to collect quasi-funny deleted articles. Dangherous 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) *Delay Deletion While currently an absurdist comedy piece, I say give this editor a shot. If references from reliable sources (like the Connecticut Post as promised above) that demonstrate notability of this subject can be shown, then there might be something to this. After all, this article was only created  a few days ago  --Oakshade 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) "Vote" changed. see below. --Oakshade 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this AFD. Having read wikipedia's deletion criteria, I fail to see the grounds for deletion. Ths subject is a factual discussion of a serious work of art. the images are public domain, and the content is of wide interest to the community. The problem here is that I havent had time yet to continue create the content - but I plan to demonstrate the intellectual property, techniques, evolution and and artistic history that is behind Gladys You see, gladys the swiss dairy cow is in fact a serious and very well known piece of ongoing performance art- having been created in over 50 forms and has appeared on television, been front page news widely circulated publications inclusing the Connecticut Post, on more than a dozen occations, and has been featured in two parades. An article documenting her development, the artists creative methods and the overall artistic merit is at least as worthy of entry as any other artists work.  Note to the admin who rejects the AFD: just wait to see how much interest the completed article generates.--68.191.43.133 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now - maybe somene you can help me on the fine points of wikipedia. I really don't know how to make sure that I have followed the formal criteria to object to the deletion - so if I've midded something I would like to know and I'm not sure what to do to get out of deletion jeopardy - but I'd be glad for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.43.133 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-15 01:56:13
 * The AFD discssion period lasts at least 5 days. You have 5 days. Uncle G 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My stalker is back. Why do I have 5 days? My comments were about the editors who feel this is worthy.  --Oakshade 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment was "Delay Deletion". I repeat: You have 5 days.  Saying that we should delay deletion betrays a misunderstanding of the AFD process.  There is a delay built in.  Please read the Guide to deletion. Uncle G 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll grant you that the art may be absurd, but the artistic merit and notabiity is not. Thank you for your support for me to have the time to prove that. here's the first few of dozens of published documents that support the case: From the Fairfield Citizen: Image:Part_1_article.jpg  From the Connecticut Post: Image:Gladys_and_sophie_front_page.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs)
 * Holdfire for now, lets see what James can make of it. We feature works of art under the same notability guidelines as we do people and places. Just be warned James, all your work may yet be headed for the wikibin, so make it a good un.Bilbo B 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the Guide to deletion and familiarize yourself with the deletion process. Uncle G 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, where can I find the notabilility guidelines?--James.lebinski 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you provide references &mdash; proper citations, not images (which could be fakes for all that everyone else knows) &mdash; in the article to at least the same degree as Gävle goat. It was those which swayed Articles for deletion/Gävle goat. Uncle G 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can appreciate that this is a longstanding family art tradition, but it is a family tradition nonetheless, and I don't see how this particular yard decoration is more notable than, say, my mom's neighbors who decorate their property with half a zillion watts of Christmas lights come December.  The newspaper mentions are a good start but these appear to be fluff pieces, not an examination of Gladys as art (WP:N requires "multiple non-trivial published works").  Note also WP:COI.  A web page would be a much more appropriate place for this.  Sorry.  bikeable (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Moo per Bikeable. --Aaron 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle G - great comment - I'm really new to WIKI so trying to write the article while addresing wiki-guardians concerns is difficult in real time - especially since I have limited technical abilit in wiki. I'll investigate the proper refernce help - the current images posted to the AFD debate are designed to serve as proof points that the subject is notable, and have not yet been added to the actual content. Bikeable and Aaron - the art is more than a family tradition, although you are correct in identifying it as being created by a family of artists. The piece has been featured in charity auctions, present at charity events ( most recently a haunted house/barnyard in Monroe, which was visited by more than 2,000 persons over three days - resulting in more than a ton of non-perishable food donations to a local soup kitchen. The artwork was the subject of an entry into West Haven CT's Cow Parade, and has also been widely photographed  Moreover, the ability to review, understand and perceive art is in itself relatively undefinable, as is the communication of a point of view on art - to you it may be fluff to have dozens of fromt page articles in connecticut papers - I'd disagree.  To my original point, Gladys is a work of art, just like every other piece listed in wikipedia. The details of the development and evolution of this art, the techniques, the outcomes, and the notability of this could very well serve as a living history of a one-day world-famous piece.  From a notability perspective as well, I can document more than two hundred written communications from art critics ( albeit amateur)  and recognition by local officals as proof of wide interest and merit. In fact, a float with Gladys as a centerpiece was awarded "Best Appearing Float, Services Club" by the Town of Fairfield's memorial day commitee in 2004 and a similar entry with gladys won "honorable mention in 2005.  So, all in all, an ongoing piece of performance art is definetly more than a once a year christmas display, (although gladys has been a christmas tree complete with an outline of lights)  Just because the topic is light hearted, doesn't mean it is not of encyclopaedic quality.  Give me some time to prove this please.--James.lebinski 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have at least until the AFD discussion period ends, as pointed out above. Please note that private communications to you from art critics do not satisfy our Verifiability policy.  Sources must be published.  We need multiple non-trivial published works (e.g. in-depth reviews by established art critics, news articles by journalists, accounts by historians) that discuss this work of art specifically.  Again, see the likes of Gävle goat and Biggest ball of twine. Uncle G 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unfortunately, all these references etc. seem to be local. There are many millions of works of art that are notable purely on a local scale. Merely having been featured on the front page of one's local newspaper cannot qualify something for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. If this is a work of art that has the potential to become famous but is not, in fact, famous now, then unfortunately we simply cannot include it now. When it has become at least nationally recognised, yes, but at present I must regretfully say that I'm not convinced this meets the criteria. (Note to closing admin: if this is eventually deleted, be sure to userfy it so James doesn't completely lose all his hard work.) &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

--James.lebinski 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Slow Down - then consider deleting - I can't keep up with all the policy reserach and write the article at the same time I've now read Uncle g's treatise on notability. I believe that this passes the multiple non-trivial sources test, and further believe that haleth;'s e notion that a "notability" threshold must be national is flawed. The combined circulation/audience of the publications cited approached one hundred thousand - which is substantial notability. Moreover, while I haven;t actiallu counted the words used to describe this art in the publications, my estimate is that each published article has been between 1000 and 3000 words. There was a professional photographer at my home last evening taking pictures for yet another newspaper arcticle to be rune before christmas so I said potential to be "world famous". The art is already famous in Connecticut.

In the middle of all this discussion, I'd like to note that I respect and appreciate the feedback- so my efforts will be in complying with the policies of wiki - which I fully expect to achieve--James.lebinski 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the article first - I found on line-references to suport the notability aspect of this argument - and added them to the article. Multiple sources, multiple journalists, wide publication, I'm on my way to addressing the concerns. How's that Uncle G?????? Keep it civil Calton The fact that you do not regard this as a performance art is clear, but there is a saying " de gustibus non-disputandum est" or in English - there is no accounting for taste. A significant number of others disagree with your position.
 * Weak Keep I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. On one hand, it looks like it might be mainly of local interest, though a claim to statewide noteworthiness has been made.  On the other... it's a quirky article, but it's treated in some depth, and with references.  It certainly appears to pass WP:V.  It is interesting.  Is it important?  We have no guidelines specifically for physical works of art, but taking WP:FILMS as an example, it could arguably pass the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criterion, and it's also had multiple exhibitions in different parts of the state.  Finally, effort is clearly being made to continue to improve the article.  In the face of all that, and lacking any strong reason for deletion, I say keep it for now and see how it develops. Shimeru 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently it also won "Best Appearing Float" at CT's largest parade. I'd missed it before, but that's another potential argument to noteworthiness.  Am leaning more toward a full keep now. Shimeru 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. For God's sake, it's a standard Cow Parade statue that one person has fixed up and repainted. Aggressively non-notable, whatever local-interest bits it picks up in hometown papers. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To the facts/policies here - I have offered proof of wide interest, significant notabiilty and and circulation, and this is in fact an ongoing piece of performance art - so if you would like to debate the facts about that according to Wiki policy, or back up your assertion that the largest circulating newspaper in Southern Ct is "hometown", or that coverage on the largest cable network in Connecticut is insignificant then lets have that converrsation.
 * Keep I think it's become more than just another plastic cow. The article seems thoroughly done. It's not "Whistler's Mother" nor "Starry, Starry Night", but Wikipedia is not paper.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- Well, not only has there been a great improvement in the article from when this AfD started, but WP:Verification appears to have been met. Not exactly a Gian Lorenzo Bernini piece, but it has notable stature nonetheless. And per Shimeru, it is interesting. --Oakshade 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A MOOOOVING experience to watch the process unfold. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Much content added but I'm Tired now, but much more authientication, contenmt and images to come

oakshade..glad to see you are open mindded Dlohcierekim greetings from across the sea

Uncle g. thanks for the edits/improvements

Could someone help with the text gaps introduced by the large images/small text

Now its almost midnight on the east caoast...have at it wiki-police..see you in the a.m.--James.lebinski 04:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep if verified. This looks and reads far different from the usual vanity trivia; it doesn't sell a PoV; it may be of local/regional interest as opposed to world-wide, but I can understand how it could gravitate towwards wider notability.  And as is it's well-enough written, that I doubt as good a job could be done swiftly, if it becomes world-famous.  If the final decision is "delete", may I suggest that it be ported to the author's User page, so that he can archive it, before salting the earth. -- Simon Cursitor 08:13, 16 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.