Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudanese goat marriage incident (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This is the third AfD since May, and since the last two were closed as keeps as well, I see no reason to think otherwise here. The fact that some of the sources are dated well after the incident has me convinced that this is not a case of WP:NOT — it wasn't just a brief flurry of news coverage for this incident. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sudanese goat marriage incident
AfDs for this article:  
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a ridiculous article which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is ridiculous and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN press fluff. What next? Skateboarding dogs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is actually the article's fourth AfD - the first two were when it was named Rose (goat). DS (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple independent reliable sources over a year apart principally about the incident. Topic is oddbeat, but at least one of the articles not only discusses the incident, but the interest in the incident. (Two previous AFD links added.) Gimmetrow 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well-sourced with independent, reliable sources. It wasn't just a flash-in-the-pan incident in the media either: I've seen reference to the incident long after, usually by conservative commentators who warn that accepting gay marriage will ultimately result in polygamy, and then, legal marriage to animals. It's certainly an odd topic, but the nominator is essentially saying it's "unencyclopedic", which is not really an informative argument to make when proposing deletion. Also, per the previous AfDs — nominated four times? Enough, already! Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "The BBC honoured the animal with a mock obituary."  6 weeks since the last AfD?  Please take repeat noms to DRV. Miami33139 (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We do not delete things simply because they are absurd. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and per WP:NOT. I can find more coverage for my high school football team. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Good Ol'factory. Perhaps the subject of the article is ridiculous, but the article itself doesn't appear to be. Maxamegalon2000 05:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a ridiculous nomination which does not belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a silly subject (so what?), but the article is well-sourced and notability is more than established. – sgeureka t•c 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's significant media coverage to establish notability, it's not a sort of "oh, isn't that cute" fluff feature that aired one night on the Toronto evening news. Calgary (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and the result of the previous three discussions. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep simply because this is the most dramatic title I've ever seen for an article. Also, the goat choked on a plastic bag, so I figure we owe it to him. Carson (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussions. The nominator doesn't really give much reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Darksun (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of significant coverage to establish notability over more than a year so not the routine news coverage of WP:NOTNEWS, also agree with Darksun. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This was a "water-cooler" story or humorous filler for newscasts, and a mild "internet phenomenon. The "obituary" was described as a joke, and the naming "Rose" was described as a joke. This is not a jokebook. Per WP:NOT "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Per the earlier essay WP:NOTNEWS, "News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance." This was sensational and humorous to some, but was a one-off with no demonstrated lasting importance. Edison (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * meets whatever is passing for our notability standards this week. merging into Human-animal marriage would unbalance the article.Genisock2 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable phenomenon at the time, and notability is not temporary, according to Wikipedia's usual doctrines. Grutness...wha?  02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because, in 20 years' time, someone will want to know about this, and they ought to be able to find context for what may well, by then, be a cross-cultural meme. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Flash in the pan, not inherently notable Avi (talk) 17:22, 24 July 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.