Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad Cow-Girl


 * 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  No consensus. The article has indeed improved since the AfD started, but despite this there has been no agreement reached on whether the subject meets the notability guidelines or not. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mad Cow-Girl

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

Non-notable politician. Being a candidate in an election does not make a person notable. Of the two news sites offered as evidence of notability, one does not mention her and the other includes her only in a brief round-up of minor party attitudes to the election. Warofdreams talk 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep-the sources provided show little verifiability, however, when searched on Google alongside the name of the Monster Raving Looney Party, it gets a quite a few hits, that verifies and proves her notability as a politician. -- S R X -- Latino  Heat  20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting "Monster Raving Loony Party" and "Mad Cow Girl" in quotes gives only 59 ghits. Once you remove the OMRLP's own sites, lists of candidates in seats in which she's stood, Everything2 and a couple of blogs, there's very little left.  They are:  noting that she won a seat on a community board (in an election with a total turnout of 338 people) and  which has a quote from her as Party Secretary of the OMRLP - but as the only one on the net, it's not enough for me to see this as notable. Warofdreams talk 20:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The David Davis by-election controversy increases her notability and has led to her getting mentions on national news sites. The google test is a load of **** any way. If google has everything why are be even bothering writing an encyclopedia? Understandably the creation of an article on a frivolous political candidate causes the deletionist cabal to exercise its wrath but if one steps back from following Kafkaesque notability guidelines Wikipedia is stronger for this article than without it Francium12 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in and of herself, and the article provides no assertion of notability to Wikipedia standards. I repeated Warofdream's Google search and confirm that she is barely verifiable, let alone actually notable. She's barely getting news coverage, nothing actually about her, and is right on the "famous for one event" thing that we don't do. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Searching her real name Rosalyn Warner increases the number of google hits. Francium12 (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I get 58 ghits for that, about half of which are her, and all of those appear to be lists of election candidates or results with no additional information. Warofdreams talk 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if she had won, I'm not 100% convinced she would be notable --T-rex 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forget Google, the article makes no claim to notability. Running for office doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice A possible Speedy this one, and I've been having something of an argument about this earlier today. This woman has barely "won" any more than 200 votes in the elections she had stood in. She is no more a politician than me - I've stood in 6 elections and failed each time, do I get a page? The Monster Raving Loony Party stand in almost all by-elections, making them notable, but indiviudal candidates are not. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as a serial candidate, per ample precedent on candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete without prejudice - the best claim to notability in the article is that she is the OMRLP's campaigns officer [edit: and secretary, and archivist]. But I don't think that's really adequate. Without prejudice, on the (unlikely) possibility that she might win. DWaterson (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The credibility of the OMRLP is on the line here, given that Davis may actually be a mainstream loon. It's clear that in fielding Mad Cow-Girl they have chosen a highly electable candidate. She is therefore the strongest Loony candidate for a very long time, and for that alone she is highly notable. Just because one or two editors above may have failed political ambitions above does not mean we should sacrifice the integrity of Wikipedia itself.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She is one of the most noteable candidates of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, who has consistently contested elections over an extended period. Such politicans consistently present themselves for elections and by-elections all over the country and their success should not be measured by votes alone. Cover, say, the most active four of this established political party and by-election voters will be well served. Recently I've seen, first hand, the aggressive intolerance some editors possess for this party and we should not let the Wikipedia suffer because of such people. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I hope people will be directed to your talk page to show that "aggressive intolerance" is not what I am displaying. I have no problem with your party, as my proposed policy on political parties proves if you go to my user area and follow the link to the proposal. I do have an issue with non-notable constantly failed candidates having articles here. I have, you are right to state, failed political ambitions, hence why there is zip liklihood of having an article in my name. Does Mad Cow Girl satisfy Wikipedia's policy on notability? Quite clearly, and with all neutrality in tact, the answer is no, the response delete. I also have to point out that I have been very civil throughout the conversation we have had on your talk page, I trust you will remain civil too. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply You can't pretend to be suprised by my description unless you were pretending to read my replies to you on my talk page that you referred people to. You shocked me with your aggression and your lack of neutrality regarding the OMRLP and it's members. You made it clear that you are not someone suitable to judge the noteability of Mad Cow-Girl. You were not civil and scared me to degree that I was forced to refuse to continue to discuss matters with you. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Surrealist Historian please familiarise yourself with WP:Civil on how to conduct yourself on wikipedia as making unjustified attacks on another editor is not acceptable and could see you ability to edit here removed. - Gallo glass  18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was giving my side on an aggressive discussion that caused me to become intimidated and scared. Of course I am prone, of course, to saw emotional things while this is still raw. I will read the guidelines you referred me to. I already refraining from directly editing Wikipedia pages. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply - I think what the user is getting at is people understandably make a knee-jerk reaction to delete when they see an article called Mad Cow-Girl. Take the comment on the talk page of the  article which questions whether this candidate is a politician. Well she has stood at 4 elections on a political platform....  Francium12 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I have no issue with her name at all. Does this candidate, regardles of party, satisfy notabiliy guide lines? Her party is notable, I have no problem at all, whatsoever, with the OMRLP, I hope that is quite clear. But Wikipedia may have an issue with non-notable, constantly failed candidates who sometimes take less than 2% of the vote having articles. I am not being aggressive towards an individual person, I am simply trying to square this article with policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Doktorbuk above links a conversation he has had on The Surrealist Historian's talk page and my comment about failed political ambitions. Just to confirm that The Surrealist Historian and 91.106.28.24 and different editors and that Doktorbuk has associated us in error.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Have we lost our minds? The whole point behind the notability guideline was to ensure that non-stub articles could be written in a way such that the content was verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Here we have a non-stub article whose content is thoroughly verified and neutral, and you are opining that it be deleted because it supposedly fails a sufficient but not necessary condition for its achieved state? Absurd. Skomorokh  12:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Even measuring the topic (unnecessarily) against the basic notability guideline for people, we find that the article more than qualifies:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject…If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis added). The subject has coverage in no less than seven major British news outlets referenced in the article, for at least one of which she is the primary topic of an article. By any measure, the outcome here is obvious. Skomorokh  13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely agree with Skomorokh above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply not notable like many of these candidate articles. Completely fails to meet criteria under WP:Notability for inclusion and is not prominent in own party. - Gallo glass  06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have shown above that she meets WP:BIO on two counts; non-trivial coverage in a reliable source and trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Please address how this does not confer notability. Skomorokh  21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * None of this coverage is about this individual, indeed any mention is simply in passing. I really am at a loss as to how you think this helps meet WP:BIO - Gallo glass  23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Strongly. She is monster raving notable. Her antics have been reported by the mainstream media on many occasions. 86.29.205.163 (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable candidate. Mas 18 dl (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have well-established precedent to not have articles on prospective parliamentary candidates until they get elected - this applies when they're serious politicians, so I fail to see why it shouldn't apply to joke candidates. Please, kill this article. Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per reasons above. By-election candidates are more notable than those at general elections; minor candidates even more so if major parties don't field candidates. Kelso21 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Candidate appeared on page 8 of my Sunday Paper, is she still not notable?. If only those so concerned with notability spent their time creating articles and working on them, think what wikpedia would look like. 137.222.229.74 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I assume this is the The Independent article referred to. As you can see the coverage is minimal to say the least. The only reason she appears to be mentioned is due to the legal requirement to mention all candidates. - Gallo glass  11:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The coverage is small but not simply minimal. And the legal requirements only apply to formal candidates once the writ has been moved, which doesn't apply to this newspaper article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be available on the internet in the period after the close of nomination, hence the requirement. Could you explain how you think this article helps Rosalyn meets WP:BIO? - Gallo glass  21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement for a newspaper to mention potential candidates for an election which formally did not even exist when the article was published just because it may be accessible later. For whatever reason the Independent chose to mention her. As for WP:BIO I don't see your problem; WP:POLITICIAN says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. and WP:BIO says If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.  This article is one of multiple articles providing non-trivial coverage.  On its own it would not be sufficient, but it all adds up. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But so far its all trivial coverage. Had I been able to find any that was more than this I'd be more than willing to change my opinion, but nothing that we've seen so far has even come close. If you have found anything that is non-trivial then please point us all in that direction. - Gallo glass  09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument is in essence over the definition of trivial; I do not accept that these mentions are trivial or simply legally required. See the mention of Bananaman Owen in  for an example which is genuinely trivial and simply in fulfilment of legal obligations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All very interesting I'm sure but where is this non-trivial coverage of Rosalyn that you keep talking about? - Gallo glass  09:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the above does not mention Rosalyn Warner in the slightest in the link indicated I assume you don't actually have any non-trivial coverage then. - Gallo glass  10:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only assume you are willfully misunderstanding the comments here, and see no useful purpose in continuing this conversation. Jonathan A Jones (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you dont actually have any examples of non-trivial you can show us then. - Gallo glass  10:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As if the topic wasn't abundantly appropriate on multiple grounds already, a second item of non-trivial coverage has been added to go with the already sufficient verified coverage in multiple sources and the non-trivial coverage in the Daily Record endorsement. Skomorokh  19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A decent quality article, regarding someone who is definitely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.79.25 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Marginal Keep If any of the major or even serious minor parties had chosen to contest the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, she wouldn't be notable, but if she remains the only opposition in this farce, she has for now enough notability that I wouldn't agree to a deletion until at least after the by-election when her impact (and thus her notability) can be fully assessed. Caerwine Caer’s whines  21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete She's not notable as the candidate of a perennial minor party in a by-election, most of the article on her simply consists of statistics which prove how non-notable she is, and if she later becomes notable, a new article can always be created. Luke Parks (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

--91.106.28.32 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've given my opinion above but I believe it's relevant to the discussion that the Daily Record say "Vote Cow-Girl"


 * NB I draw editors attention to the following Deletion Log -
 * (Deletion log); 18:39 . . PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Madcow (politican)" (WP:PROD, reason was non-notable joke candidate)

doktorb wordsdeeds 22:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Please bear in mind the fact that the article has undergone significant improvement during the course of this AfD, that early !votes in this AfD should be interpreted in this light, and that at minimum meets the the Heymann standard. Sincerely, Skomorokh  19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't dare start the article on Bananaman Owen standing in Henley ! Francium12 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- the current state of this byelection makes her important. The MRLP is also relevant in that it reflects the devalued status of politicians in UK society User:Cerddaf  23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - increasingly notable candidate in a somewhat loony election: Wikipedia is the better for the existence of this article. PamD (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But Wiki is not a crystal ball. She could, I concede, win this election. Or she could, as she did in Sunderland, get 1% of the vote, continuing her losing streak. As it stands now, as things currently are, she is a constantly and continued losing candidate. And losing non-notable candidates (Elizabeth Shenton, recently) have their articles deleted. Incedentally, I voted to delete the Elizabeth Shenton article. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a rather ridiculous representation of keep arguments. No-one who has expressed support for the article has proposed that she is notable in light of her chances of winning. I would also be interested in hearing your argument as to why the current version of the article, with both multiple trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources, and non-trivial coverage in at least one, fails the general notability guideline, because at present, your arguments are sounding very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sincerely, Skomorokh  22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply My argument is simple. As it stands, after she has stood in numerous elections, Mad Cow is a constantly failing, non-notable candidate, who won less than 1% of the vote in a general election, failing WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. (coming late, judging current state of article) Accepting it is based on a single current event, I think she is just about notable in this election in terms of the notability standard for candidates. What tips the balance for me is the presence of a 'political career' if it can be called that, the profile of the OMRL (whose article by the way needs some serious work), and her role in this election, which is seeing her being cast in sources as a credible candidate in a two horse loony race, rather than just the usual joke also ran. And with a centralised page of her own, at least the repeat insertions of her info across multiple other articles can be cut down to the appropriate length. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. But WP:POLITICIAN clearly states that an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability so in other words they need to be notable for something else than simply being a candidate and there currently is nothing else. - Gallo glass  16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going on the rest of the section: ...although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." . Selective quotation is bad. Very bad. MickMacNee (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As there has been no significant coverage apart from one mention in her local Sunderland paper (all others being about the by-election itself) it simply does not apply. Are you not being rather selective in ignoring the former part of the quote yourself? -  Gallo glass  18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the coverage is not significant is simply that, your claim, and seems to be based on some rather idiosyncratic interpretations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not claiming anything dear boy, just reading whats written. - Gallo glass  20:25, 20 June 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.