Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You have two cows


 * 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have two cows

 * — (View AfD)

Article is not encyclopedic. See talk. Ghewgill 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a very notable joke, and no sources or references to show any notability. Jayden54 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - changing my vote after a few references have been added to show its notability. Jayden54 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is an extremly notable joke.  It has been used in many text books and a google search will show thousands of hits.  Also it is written in an encylopedic fashion. Graemec2 09:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Notable things are those that have been written about in reliable, independent sources. Can anyone cite a secondary source about the joke, or just more examples of the joke itself? I could find thousands of examples of blue cars, but unless someone writes something about blue cars as a group, we can't support having an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (weak since it's largely unsourced but it probably could be I uess), undoubtedly a common genre of joke. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Graemec2. Google before proposing for deletion. -THB 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did google, and all I found were joke lists. Joke lists aren't sources for an encyclopedia article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep even as a joke, it's still used enough in political classes and discussions to be noteworthy. Quack 688
 * Weak Keep needs sources, but I can see how it would be notable. James086Talk 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems useful on the topic. Jamesbuc
 * delete, seriously needs sourcing, but I doubt that should be hard to find. I'll change this to a keep if sources are added. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The only interesting article that could come from this poor attempt at humour and effective attempt at propaganda would be one on its real origins, early spread, and pre-online diffusion in the media.EstherRice 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your sense of humor (or lack thereof) doesn't make the article any less notable. Strong keep. Only advice I could give would be a few more sources. -Ryanbomber 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from insults, and give a reason why it's notable. There are no sources and it has been questioned whether any could be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to insult. Re-reading it it was a little crueler-sounding then I meant it to be. I meant that people have different senses of humor and just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean nobody else does. Reworded it a bit for civility. As for notability, [Google's neat.] -Ryanbomber 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * # of google hits != notability. "white car" gets 8 times as many hits, but still isn't a legitimate article topic.  Notability is shown by being written about in independent sources, which still has yet to be shown. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was hard-pressed for time and I had to go to Google. I still don't have all THAT much time so I can't get any "real" evidence, but the point of having at least slight significance because it had Google hits still stands. It proves that it exists and it's not just nonsense someone added for giggles. This is OBVIOUSLY not something someone just invented in school one day. Notability shouldn't be too hard to prove, and I'll do so when I get more time. -Ryanbomber 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notable and relevant psychological and sociological sources can be added, besides that in Fireland the joke goes: you have two lamas... do they get an article too ? Alf photoman 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alf the fact that their is an alternative version of the joke, as per your lamas, just proves that it is notable. Immitation is the greatest form of flattery.Graemec2 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. verified, sourced, notable, encyclopedic. Certainly better-known and more notable than most of the internet memes that have articles. Agent 86 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Added 5 print references which presented and discussed the jokes as illustrative of economic issues, and not just as a "Joke of the week" filler. Multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable print sources over a span of years from around the world. Every Wiki article should have so notable a subject. Edison 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as references have been found by User:Edison, proving its notability. Axem Titanium 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - can we rename this article? I agree that it is weakly notable, but the title is misleading and uninformative--Dmz5 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is encyclopedic and plenty of material in article. Seems ok to rename when AFD is over. Fg2 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is encyclopedic, sourced, and undoubtedly will improve over time. RFerreira 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've seen it used in political science textbooks, and can look up references, it's an interesting paradigm in political science, and while it could be merged into say ideology it wouldn't fit terribly well. Wintermut3 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable joke... well referenced.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this is a notable joke. -- S onicChao talk 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Anomo 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sheesh. "Delete because it's not funny" is GREAT rationale. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencylopedic. I don't dispute that "Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device. Nevertheless the article doesn't add any non-obvious information on its subject beyond reproducing the "Two Cows" joke. Encyclopedic articles are about their subject matter; that is, they more than merely exemplify their subject matter. If a reader who encountered the "Two Cows" joke elsewhere came here to find more information on it, would he leave any more knowledgeable? No. Accordingly, the article as it is now is unencyclopedic. To the extent I doubt any verifiable information could be found to make it ecyclopedic, the article should be deleted. Pop Secret 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep b/c i've never heard of this "two cow" reference, i find this entry incredibly useful. Jiggles3000 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I Dissent. Webster defines Encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge". To the extent that "Two Cows" is either a joke, or a rhetorical device used as an explanatory device, it qualifies as "information." I disagree that there is as wide an intellectual chasm between describing subject matter and exemplifying/embodying it as Secret, J. would have have us believe. Indeed, it is unclear that encyclopedias function as merely devices to encapsulate general concepts, instead of descriptively identifying something; if that were the case, biographical articles would not exist. It seems obvious that I know what a swimming pool is and elucidation does not result from wikipedia; my knowledge is not furthered. Yet, swimming pool is a valid article - its propriety is an article precisely because certain people may not *know* what a swimming pool is. This is the same logic that defends Two Cows. Additionally, as specifically noted on Wikipedia's policy page defining what Wikipedia isn't, it is noted that "...there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover..." To the extent that a layperson would seek further information about "Two Cows" and the corresponding no cost of keeping the article, it should stand. M&#39;Naghten-T&#39;sea-voz, C.J. 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the two cows joke is a notable phenomenon. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is encyclopedic, doesn't fail any policies. --- RockMFR 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's source material. Thus it violates WP:NOT. Pop Secret 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT doesn't say that you can't keep source material on WP. It says you can't merely keep source material.  So long as the article backs up that source material with additional content, it's perfectly admissible. SteveBaker 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. I actually hadn't realized its similarity to the concept of a tutorial on the invention of currency. Keep. DS 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not the world's greatest article - but some of our readers will find it useful/interesting. SteveBaker 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep More than a joke, it's an allegory of the various political & economic systems we live under. Of necessity, improve the artice & add better sourcing.  After all, you only have two cows until one gets nominated for deletion.  --Ssbohio 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep now that bit has references. --Richmeistertalk 05:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Major Delete, by the way: No I Don't Have Two Cows, Unlike You! 86.20.53.195 18:05, 12 December 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.