Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowznofski

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowznofski

Non-notable in-joke, only appeared in a handful of early issues of Mad. No sources to back it up, just some in-universe info relevant only to very obsessed fans of Mad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User529 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources for a nonnotable neologism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so bizarrely at variance with the content of the article that we must suppose that it was made without reading the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable and unreferenced 3 year old neologism. Artene50 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so bizarrely at variance with the content of the article that we must suppose that it was made without reading the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'd never heard of it before this AfD, but certainly seems notable.

The last two of these is probably best (article on the subject from the Chicago Tribune, book partly on topic) but the other two are also fine [1], [2], [3],[4]. There are a large number of others of lesser quality. But these are darn good.

Hobit (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that a merge and redirect of potrzebie and Alfred E. Newman might be in order at some point as an editorial movement. But deletion is clearly the wrong move here. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a no-brainer. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your !vote, Colonel Warden. For those of us not "in" on the joke, it clearly is not a no-brainer. In fact, the only thing that is clear to me is that the subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. (!) JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Related to potrzebie, which certainly isn't going to be deleted. Also, I concur with the Colonel's comments on the votes above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, it is a non-notable neologism which lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Perhaps Wiktionary will want it, but I doubt it. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the links I provided above? I think they generally cover the topic well enough, but would be interested to hear any problems you have with them. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the Colonel - notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My main concern here is the lack of sources directly related to the term. Everything that has turned up so far has been related directly to Alfred E. Neuman. In that case, I wouldn't mind a merge to Alfred's page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.