Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding cow
 | If you came here because a post on Dave Barry's web log asked you to "do whatever it is that needs to be done", please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- "Exploding Cows" does not even seem to be a real issue and does not even seem to rise to the level of an urban myth. It seems as if this article was put up along with all the other animals. The subject just seems to be complete nonsense. ---Gothere 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree - this appears to be at least a valid urban talk:Wrathchild-K|talk]) 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it is "a reasonably valid article" and should not be deleted. It appears to be accurate and useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.221.52 (talk • contribs)
- While in no way endorsing the claim that this article might be useful, I will note that Dave Barry's blog has called for this article to be retained: http://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/2006/09/a_call_to_actio.html FlashSheridan 15:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since it seems that the source of "Exploding Cows" is a running gag for Dave Barry, maybe we would be better off adding it as a subsection to his entry & have the term Exploding Cows redirect to him... or we could just create a Wikipedia entry for every joke he comes up with.--Gothere 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Don't delete others' comments. Simply add your own. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a valid issue. It's not real. It's not even 'urban myth'. There is no reason to keep this since it serves no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.32.212 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 15:38:54 (UTC)
- Comment If Dave Barry writes of exploding cows, then this topic does indeed serve a purpose. It becomes an anchor point for those who seek to research his works of comedy and parody. If we start deleting topics simply because someone thinks they are "pointless", then soon it cud lead Wikipedia into udder chaos. I say this: Let the exploding cow remain! (And if we attemtped to create an entry for every joke Mr. Barry comes up with, we would need to add at least 7 additional entries! ;) --[[User:PirateBoy|Pirateboy[[ 08:56, 27-September 2006 (PDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvsopen (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 15:59:59 (UTC)
- This is a valid article and should be retained. Exploding cows are a routine event, although not widely reported. This should really be left well enough alone. In fact, more research needs to be done into the subject of exploding cows and the wikipedia entry could even be expanded more broadly. --rbenjamin 27-Sept 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.227.90 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 16:07:53 (UTC)
- Comment Pirateboy is right, as I believe this so-called myth has gone past the tipping point. It behooves Wikipedia to maintain this entry, even if there is legitimate grounds to question its technical accuracy. As Mr. Barry might say: Burger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanie theBlue (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 16:21:46 (UTC)
I once had a girlfriend who lived in Canada whose cousin's best friend was killed by an exploding cow. True story!
- Comment This article does no harm. It's not hurting the site or anyone who uses it. If you believe it to be nonsense, just ignore it and be on your way instead of insisting on taking it down, for which there is no valid reason anyway.
If we let individual's opinions decide which articles remain and which are deleted, Wiki would be in chaos, at least what would be left of it. I saw people arguing that a page on some aspect of physics (the specific one eludes my memory) needed to be taken down because it was "irrelevent."
To those who consider this to be inappropriate, obscene, disgusting smut, let me remind you that many of Wiki's most viewed pages are lists of porn stars. This article is much more appropriate than any of those, yet this is the one that gets marked for deletion. This article also serves more of a purpose. It may just save some farmer's life by, say, teaching him not to light up a cigarette next to a cow that has just flatulated.71.100.4.176 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, borderline nonsense. --Nydas 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Retention should be automatic when the reason for deletion is it's "unencyclopedic". We don't need the userbox wars to carry over to other articles. It does go together with the other "exploding" articles too.Sct72 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Googles shows over a million hits for "Exploding cows". At a minimum it warrants a page for the extent of the urban myth developed around it. I agree a cross-reference to Dave Barry would be appropriate.
- Interestingly enough the article currently doesn't mention Dave Barry. If he is the only reason to keep it, than it must be Delete.128.6.78.69 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)