Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cow Hug Day (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 delete. No great single redirect target, so if someone wants to pick one and create it, go ahead. Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Hug Day

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Majority of coverage is from the same couple days of unsustained relevance all reporting on the same limited information. Does not look likely to have lasting notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Events, and India. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and WP:SUSTAINED. Really just an attempt by a single organization to create a named "day" that failed to gain traction with a small brief burst of news coverage for a very localized thing. KoA (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I am not too keen on retaining the article at least in present form but I have following observations.
WP:BEFORE → B.5 →
Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating.

Returning back to same AfD discussion (Just 40 days in this case) can be tiring to at least some of the participants from previous discussion.

WP:AFD in top box first sentence says
"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate.
could we not really take some effort to find out if reasonable RS is available for 'Cow cuddling' and could we not discuss possibilities of renaming the article specially there was no consensus for deletion in an AfD that closed just 40 days ago.

Bookku (talk)

I didn't check for a previous AfD before starting this one which I suppose is my mistake. However, that previous AfD being closed as keep instead of no consensus was a mistake which I think justifies restarting the discussion, especially when it's been over a month. As for the cow cuddling section, if you want a new article under that name then go make one. The subject of this article is what's under discussion, not the single sentence that someone chose to (excuse the pun) beef the article up a bit with. Whether there should be an article about cow cuddling is an entirely separate question that shouldn't be discussed here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check the last AfD either at first, but I have to agree. Even without the "cancellation", when the article was created (and the AfD itself) was too soon to establish notability. That's why I mentioned it violating WP:SUSTAINED above. Lots of sources, but just brief bursts as that guideline specifically describes that really wasn't significant coverage anyways, but moreso Human-interest story.

I looked through the last AfD though now, and the keeps were extremely superficial that were textbook WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments that shouldn't be made at AfD. The merges also didn't really seem like a viable option (and still don't) because this really was a blip on the radar in terms of WP:DUE too or basically a WP:NEOLOGISM. The close itself really didn't indicate consensus for keep either, but was really written as no consensus when you read the text. There just wasn't consensus to delete the article then, but some closers don't differentiate between no consensus and keep because it functionally results in the same outcome (i.e., article remains). KoA (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, you can't call it an "annual event" when it's only been held once – no, not at all, apparently! Just passing news briefs for something silly, no lasting significance. At best, merge to Animal Welfare Board of India. Reywas92^Talk 04:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that merge suggestion would probably be better than deleting. The target seems right for it. I'll support that as an ATD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a term that was more apparent as to how it related to the organization, then a merge/redirect could make sense. That said, we're dealing with a pretty vague term that likely wouldn't have WP:DUE to include in the organization article. It would instead fall under WP:R#DELETE #8 If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym. . . It would just seem like poor redirect quality control without a clearer reason for a redirect. KoA (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One, redirects are cheap. Two, the page views from February were huge. If it ever spikes again then I think it would hurt to have nothing to return. And three, I don't find DUE really applies here. The concern of DUE is with fairly representing controversial viewpoints, and I don't think there's anything controversial about acknowledging the existence of this silly holiday. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, but easily become problematic if not used carefully. It's too generic of a phrase to tie to this one group. DUE applies everywhere as it's policy, and a synonym for it is whether something is WP:NOTEWORTHY to include in an article (not to be confused with notability). What you are suggesting about future use would be WP:CRYSTAL. Ever indication right now is that it was a small flash in the pan that stopped in coverage that day really. If something revives, then it can be reconsidered at that time. KoA (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Animal Welfare Board of India or Valentine's Day in India as I said at the previous AfD. Not notable on its own. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cattle in religion and mythology#Hinduism as a delightful and well sourced example. small jars tc 00:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage only just barely mentions a Hindu connection without really delving into it. I don't think that's the best target with a connection that narrow/assumed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and the statement from the board included explicitly describe it as an attempt to revive Vedic traditions. small jars tc 10:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that's the "just barely mentions" I was referring to. The coverage otherwise doesn't focus on that aspect at all. If a section was made at Animal Welfare Board of India about this article then it could link to Cattle in religion and mythology#Hinduism easily, but I think this subject would otherwise be entirely out of place in that article and would be better included elsewhere. We don't want any part of Cattle in religion and mythology to seem off topic, do we? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin: Since there is ongoing back-and-forth over a potential merger/redirect target, I feel I should emphasize that despite that, nobody is arguing to keep the article independent. If it comes down to it, which it very well could, I am still in support of deletion and I don't think anyone else here is opposed to that necessarily, so that would be a much better option than closing as no consensus. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Either way, it isn't enough to have an article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2023 (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.