Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture

Cattle in popular culture

This article starts out with the unverifiable, OR claim that "cattle are thought by many to be inherently funny" due to the likes of their "propensity for flatulence," and dives headfirst into a long, indiscriminate list of movies, TV shows, songs, and commercials that happen to feature a cow in some way or form, some of which are very questionable (honestly, would a TV commercial for cereal really have a joke about masturbating a steer?). A very good example of where an "in popular culture" article is not justified. Krimpet 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Waaaaaay too undefined of a list. This will get very huge very quickly with no sign of stopping. Violates WP:NOT. --Wafulz 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article detailing every cow joke ever is just what we don't need. --tjstrf talk 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is just an indiscriminate list. Other "in popular culture" articles have analysis. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god, that is to say, delete - indiscriminate list of any time a cow appears in any setting. No no no no no. Otto4711 06:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must go on record to say that this is a topic that could be useful for research. If the article seems indiscriminate, clean it up. - Richardcavell 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 07:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, really. This article contains information that is genuinely useful to cartoonists, scriptwriters, advertisers, and so on. I see no reason to delete. The argument given in WP:USEFUL applies when there is a better place for the information (eg phone numbers should go in a phonebook), but I see no better place for this article than wikipedia. - Richardcavell 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete according to WP:TRIV. Cataloguing pop culture references is the lazy way to show the significance of something. Gazpacho 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per being unverifiable, subjective, OR that is patently unencyclopedic. --Haemo
Delete -wow.. What next "Horses in popular culture"..--Cometstyles 08:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all aforementioned reasons. Intinn^Talk! 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a violation of WP:OR --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might support an entirely rewritten, referenced analysis article The main problems that I see with this article are that it isn't referenced, it makes some questionable original research sounding claims (like the line about cows being inherently funny), and it presents all its information in a bullet list of snippets. So as it stands it's not a very good article. For me to support it, it would have to be repurposed and rewritten, basically talking about cows as they appear in popular media in a more encyclopedic manner (eg convert bullet list facts into a more comprehensive analysis and paragraph format) and has to provide at least minimal secondary sources to show the analysis isn't original research. FYI, note that it looks like this article was split off from Cattle#Cattle in popular culture Dugwiki 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, how is this any different from Lions in popular culture or Coyotes in popular culture or Frogs in popular culture or Manatees in popular culture or any of the other articles in the "animals in popular culture" category??? The article could sure use some clean-up but that's not a criterion for deletion. Cows are infact quite prevalent in popular culture... right now there is an annoying ad on TV for a ringtone featuring a dancing cow singing "I like to MOO MOO! I like to MOO MOO!" --Candy-Panda 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those other "(animal) in popular culture" articles are just as bad for the same reason: nothing more than indiscriminate lists of times that animal is mentioned in some song or TV show. Of the examples you cited, the only one of encyclopedic caliber IMO is Lions in popular culture, as it cites numerous cultural depictions of lions in mythology, literature, heraldry, etc. that are all quite historically significant. Dancing cow ringtones are not historically significant. Krimpet 02:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Action Jackson IV 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete listcruft. I jokingly made reference to The color blue in popular culture in an earlier AfD - little did I know that there was an equally ridiculous and real list out there. --Action Jackson IV 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you've got to admit, cows are inherently funny, which is why they are so prevalent in popular culture. It is also the reason why nobody is taking this AfD seriously, and everyone is calling the article's subject "ridiculous". --Candy-Panda 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cows are prevalent in our culture because mankind has domesticated them as livestock for food, dairy, leather, and such for thousands of years, not simply because they are "inherently funny." And the article's statement that "many people" find cattle funny is a clear-cut example of weasel words and OR; who finds cattle "inherently funny," and where can I find reliable published attributions to confirm this? Krimpet 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the article about inherently funny words..
Gary Larson, in The Prehistory of the Far Side writes: "Cows, as some Far Side readers know, are a favorite subject of mine. I've always found them to be the quintessentially absurd animal for situations even more absurd. Even the name 'cow,' to me, is intrinsically funny."

Also, 132,000 google hits [1] would agree that "cows are inherently funny", and 1,300,000 would agree that "cows are funny" [2], 1,290,000 like "cow jokes" [3], 1,480,000 like "funny cow pictures"[4], 1,850,000 watch the "I like to MOO" dancing cow video [5], 2,070,000 like to tell "You have two cows..." jokes[6] and 2,010,000 say "holy cow!" [7] --Candy-Panda 06:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct the searches that Candy-Panda did above, note that you searched for things that include "cow", "funny" and/or "are" in any order anywhere on the webpage. That's why you have hundreds of thousands of hits. When you search for the exact quoted phrase "cows are funny" you get 119 hits. Dugwiki 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. definitely a notable topic (cowbell, Elsie the Cow, ...). A brief summary of cattle in popular culture in the main article, with a detailed subarticle is entirely appropriate in this case. --Aude (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Regardless of the question of whether it is possible to meaningfully talk about "cattle in popular culture", there is no attribution of the opinions in the introduction, and the rest of the article consists of a list that shows little potential of being synthesized into something from which meaning can be derived. Dekimasuよ! 13:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly legitimate subject for an article, can be cleaned up. No need for deletion. --NinjaBunny 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]