Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maudine Ormsby


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maudine Ormsby

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

My prod, which I did in part because I thought this might be a hoax, was deleted because the person says it isn't a hoax. Well, fine. I still think it is not wiki worthy for a stand alone article. The fact that no OSU page links to it, IMHO, is testimony to that. Either incorporate into an appropriate OSU page and then delete or merge out right as nn. Postcard Cathy 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Interesting fact. Reasonably sourced (newspaper article from OSU paper) for a stub. Legitimate bit of notability--at least locally. I can see adding it into an appropriate OSU page but I can't think of an example (Does OSU have a page dedicated to homecomings?). Thus, a stand alone article makes the most sense. CraigMonroe 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OSU probably doesn't have a page dedicated to homecomings (and it shouldn't!) but you can create a subsection on the main page. Another option is to put it somewhere if there is a general page on OSU sports since, in my experience, homecomings are associated with (usually) football games.  Postcard Cathy


 * Comment I don't think that is the best option. Having this on the main OSU page is absurd, and would be at best a trivial inclusion. As for the OSU football/athletics pages, the link is tangential at best. It would be different if there was an OSU homecoming page. It seems to me, the subject meets WP:N at least locally (which is all that is needed), and WP:V.CraigMonroe 13:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is something very illogical about your comment. If it is too trivial to put on the main OSU page, then why is not trivial when it comes to having it's own page?  You can't be trivial in one aspect and not trivial in another, at least in this respect.  Postcard Cathy
 * Comment No, it would be trivial because it would have to be placed in a trivia section to be placed on a seperate page. If not, where would you place it? There is no section on homecoming. As for being trivial on its own page, it is not. There are sources that deal directly with the topic, in a non-trivial manner. In fact, if you really wanted to do some research, I am sure you can go back and see several articles on the topic at the time it occured--which was well before the news was put on the web. These issues all point to it meeting WP:N and WP:V which equates to this AFD nom being improper. I really don't see the issue here. CraigMonroe 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment not enthusiastic about the animal, notoriety seems trivial, but three Google Books have results. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Google searches show some notability, which is astounding for a cow from 1926. How many non-trivial references are there in articles not available online? Also, notability does not mean online notability, or popularity with people living in 2007. -- Charlene 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The more interesting cows Wikipedia has the better. Nick mallory 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You cow fetishest you! :)


 * Delete not notable-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to respond to Nick mallory: WP already has an interesting cow at Sherwood v. Walker. Maybe merge back into the university's article? Bearian 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ) The cow is irrelevant as it is just a vehicle to the legal issue at hand. Postcard Cathy
 * Comment I think he was making a joke. There is no need to take this all so seriously. CraigMonroe 17:07, 14 July 2007 (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.