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. W.marsh 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near being notable. It's a goat, for Pete's sake. Prod contested. Sean William@ 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying you're necessarily wrong that this should be deleted but you should present an actual argument - not just "it's a goat". We have a whole category of stuff like that. Category:Famous animals Haukur 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, people should view the article and make their own decision. Sean William@ 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Nowhere near being notable" is patently false, the BBC wrote an obituary for it, for god's sake. It's possibly one of the most notable goats ever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to write a biography on the goat? If you can't, then we shouldn't have an article on it. Sean William@ 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a pretty viable start right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The goat sex may, perhaps, possibly have been notable, but not the goat, come on. (H) 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many goats do you know that achieve international fame and get an obituary from the BBC? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zero. Does that make the goat encyclopedic? No. (H) 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you know one, and her name is Rose. Second, yes, it absolutely does make it encyclopedic for our purposes. --batdlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If it got news coverage, we shouldn't be forced to include it. Sean William@ 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is not a tabloid. We judge encyclopedicness by the sources available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The goat was covered as news by The Guardian [1], The Times [2], and The Daily Telegraph [3]. None of which are tabloid newspapers.
Delete by all means. +sj + 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presumptively notable per WP:N, and I see no compelling reason to delete. Yes, it's a bit tabloid and "News of the weird", but the references demonstrate a continuing interest. It meets the policies and guidelines, and I think it's OK for WP to have a playful side too.--Kubigula(talk) 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the event may be notable, but how is the goat itself informative in any way? (H) 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage appears to be extensive and, perhaps most importantly, over a reasonably wide span of time. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note the existence of the largely duplicate article Charles Tombe. I feel that this might make an amusing, and possibly illuminating, aside in an article such as Marriage in Sudan, but unfortunately the wiki's coverage of African topics is pitiful and such an article doesn't yet exist. I also can't resist repeating a line from the Juba Postupdate that is either a miracle of dry humor or a obtuse result of overly conscientious reporting: "Since last year, the wedded goat has now produced a kid; but not a human one." - BanyanTree 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Zscout370 has redirected Mr. Tombe's article to Rose (goat). - BanyanTree 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I made the redirect is that all information in Tombe's article is included here. I just felt uneasy with Tombe's article stating nothing but he married a goat because he boned it. Btw, delete this article. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A handful of special interest and lighthearted reports that hardly strike me as journalism are not the sort of thing that satisfies long-term encyclopedic importance or a historical impact on society for this goat, and most assuredly not enough to justify Wikipedia participating in the public humiliation of the man that is more the subject of this article than the goat. Last I checked, not only was Wikipedia not a shameless tabloid, but some wise soul had actually written that into policy, as well. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple independent sources are cited to demonstrate the goat's notability. I'm not really sure which notability guideline the goat falls under (no one's yet written WP:GOAT) but it meets the primary notability criterion of WP:N, i.e. multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. I will wikify the page to introduce inline citations, however. Waltonalternate account 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Biographies of Deceased Bovidae. No, seriously per Dmcdevit. -Docg 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet phenoms are so flash in the pan that honestly, I don't think most of them deserve inclusion. Notability? On a "light news of the day" part of a newspaper, maybe. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. If a subject passes the notability guidelines at any point in time, it is notable, and remains so indefinitely. --Ashenai 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument. Please try to remain constructive. --Ashenai 08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well stop and think. What the press note today is not necessarily notable in any enduring sense. Then read what you linked to, because it says "a burst of news coverage about a subject does not provide objective evidence of long-term notability"--Docg 08:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the page, and it's clear to me that my original reply ("if a subject passes the notability guidelines at any point in time, it is notable, and remains so indefinitely") is 100% founded in policy. Our job is to determine whether it passes the notability guidelines, not to speculate on whether it will still be popular in 10 years. --Ashenai 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there 'objective evidence of long-term notability"?--Docg 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, and that's a much better argument than "it's a goat, for god's sake". I believe there is: I posit that any peson (well, entity) with a BBC obit is notable enough for Wikipedia. Is there even a single counter-example, other than the subject in question? --Ashenai 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, as with most media outlets, routinely collects light-hearted human interest stories to run as the proverbial Dead donkey at the end of the news. That does not make them notable. Unless we are allowing the BBC to do our thinking for us. WP:NOT a newspaper.--Docg 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But this brouhaha made it into at least four separate major media outlets. Certainly, Wikipedia shouldn't include everyhing that makes it into a newspaper. But insisting that something is non-notable after it's been covered in the BBC, the Times, Fox News, and the Daily Mail (which, admittedly, is a tabloid) seems like just being hard-headed. The subject matter is obviously absurd, but so is AYBABTU. We're not here to judge that. --Ashenai 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but news services are lazy. They crib and copy. That a 'sex with goat' story got grabbed by the press networks is neither surprising nor notable.--Docg 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I'm now ambivalent on the issue. I feel that this goat is right on the edge of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Ashenai 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the story has retained traction - coverage has lasted over a year - is enough to distinguish it from the majority of fleeting news stories. The article meets the policies and guidelines, so the real question is whether we want to allow room on WP for this kind of light-hearted fare. My feeling is that we should, if the content meets our criteria; we can take a harder line against the stuff that is less well sourced or more obviously a flash in the pan.--Kubigula(talk) 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why "it's a goat" is any sort of argument for non-notability. The Holy Prepuce is a foreskin that probably does not even exist, and it has an article. I'm open to revising my opinion if anyone comes up witzh a better reason than "it's a goat", and "it's an Internet fad", since we have articles on both animals and Internet fads. --Ashenai 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Difficult issue, I'm right on the fence here. Neutral/Undecided. --Ashenai 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those were not an argument, and I think I am a someone. Could you give more of a response to legitimate concens than dismissing them like that? Dmcdevit·t 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are both arguments, which is why I showed that they are fallacious arguments. "It's a goat" is a fallacious argument because we have (justified, uncontroversial, stable) articles about far more trivial objects. "It's an Internet fad" is fallacious because we have (justified, uncontroversial, stable) articles about Internet fads, see AYBABTU.
Your argument appears to boil down to two main points. The first is the "it's a fad" argument, which I've addressed, above. The second is "it's humiliating to the person involved, which I must admit gives me more pause. To be quite honest, I never quite know how to interpret that bit of policy. --Ashenai 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- even if there are more famous goats, this doesn't mean that this one should not be memorialised, for future generations. -- 62.25.109.196 11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, blatantly passes WP:N. One of the most read stories in the history of the BBC News website, that is certainly noteworthy. However, I think consensus is needed whether or not the article should be here or in Charles Tombe, the human involved in the incident, but we can leave that till after this AfD. --Darksun 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely. We definitely cannot delete this. AndyJones 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously, because it's an article about a goat who got caught having sex with a man and was forced to marry him. It doesn't come more notable than that. AndyJones 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small correction: please note that the man was forced to marry the goat, not the other way around. As far as I know, there are no sources discussing whether the marriage was in accordance with the goat's wishes, or whether she was coerced into wedlock :) --Ashenai 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's gotta BLP this just for fun, because BLP obviously applies to dead goats. Other than that, keep per numerous media coverage. Grue 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, how about the guy who had sex with the goat? Is he not a living person? Sean William@ 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does apply, because the article contains biographical material about a living person, but it also happens to be 100% BLP-compliant, as far as I can see. I don't even see how this could be debated (though I've learned never to underestimate Wikipedian creativity) --Ashenai 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see how Wikipedia plastering the name of the man that was publicly humiliated after having sex with a goat on a top 10 website and turning what would have been a short-lived fad into an article that already is and probably always will be the top Google result for his name could possibly even maybe be a BLP issue? Dmcdevit·t 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is also a top 10 (or at least, very highly ranked) website, and is the 2nd Google result for his name, and probably always will be, unless himself or someone with the same name does something notable. I don't really think Wikipedia is making the issue worse. --Darksun 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the poor goat? Did anybody ever ask the goat if the goat's humiliation should be protected under BLP? Are we not showing insensitivity towards the poor goat and should give it the benefit of the utmost sensitivity towards it plight? FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE GOATS??? :D (Sorry, am in a silly mood at the moment, but you may log this as a Comment that a long AfD over this is just plain silly in itself.) 216.201.119.71 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no arguement for deletion has been given as "its a goat" does not cut it. PS this is entirely complient to BLP. Hypnosadist 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per any of the other delete reasons. Adam Bishop 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straightforward speedy under the biographies of living goats policy. Nah, seriously, delete as newscruft. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that BLP does not advocate the removal of sourced, neutral material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the written form of the policy is somewhat out of date. I guess we can fix that. Note that my deletion reason above is not concerned with the BLP. However there may be BLP concerns. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes BLP, WP:N, NPOV, and every other policy. There's no reason to delete this. If someone wants these kinds of articles deleted WP:N will have to be changed. WP:POINTMcKay 21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I assure you, that was not my intention. Sean William@ 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your only reason for deleting the article is that She's a goat. This should be Speedy Kept because you didn't provide a valid reason for deleting. Do you also think that Bill the Goat, Domestic goat, Three Billy Goats Gruff, and other articles be deleted too? We have a policy, it's called WP:N, which it clearly passes via the primary notablity criterion. (BBC obit for one, heck, even the BBC obit is probably notable, as the obit probably has substantial press coverage). McKay 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, my reason for deletion is "Nowhere near being notable". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have a serious problem with press coverage dictating notability: News services will pick up any story that they think will get attention. In doing so, they end up picking up stories about random individuals that are not notable at all, but instead got their misfortune covered by a major news outlet. News services could care less about the person affected, as long as people read their article on it. Would you create an article on Angel Aguilar, just because his death was covered by Reuters ([4])? Sean William@ 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current WP:N policy guideline is the primary notability criterion. If anyone would like to follow policy, they should use that. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Reuters is reliable, but it isn't enough. A Reuters death coverage doesn't count for "significant", WP:N elaborates "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." Multiple sources is the WP:N guide. If you've got a problem with that, you should bring it up there. McKay 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not policy. Don't treat it like one. Sean William@ 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when the BBC runs your obituary... you're notable... As odd as it may be for a goat to have a biography... it did get media coverage. If the main character for Mister Ed and Lassie are notable enough to have articles... If Sadie the war hero dog gets an article... I cant see why this goat isnt notable enough for an article. ALKIVAR™☢ 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell... if Paris Hilton's dog Tinkerbell gets a freaking article... do I need to even finish that thought? ALKIVAR™☢ 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other crap exists doesn't mean that this pile of excrement should. Sean William@ 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, could you please tell us what you think should be the bar for inclusion? McKay 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to deal with things like these on a case-by-case basis. Drawing a specific line would be, in my mind, a bad thing, due to the need for guidelines to be very flexible. Notability is one of those things that can't be defined by a single guideline. Instead, notability must be judged by debates, which is why we have AfD. Sean William@ 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Deletion request is invalid, 'it's a goat for pete's sake' is not a reason to delete an article. Close deletion request pending user actually coming up with a coherent reason for deletion. Current argument runs to 'not notable because it's a goat'. Completely useless. 84.9.39.232 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment below the nomination comes to "Read this article and come to your own conclusion". This goat isn't notable, because news sources don't care about what they publish. If they can get readers, then they'll tell the people the random stories they want to hear. Sean William@ 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you come across as time-wasting. "News sources don't care about what they publish" is an absurd assertion, clearly they do, otherwise, the newspapers would be filled with the first million digits of pi. The BBC will not print that my son had his birthday party yesterday for instance, because it is not a notable event. They *will* print things that are notable. Now please stop wasting people's time and properly explain why this is *not* notable, rather than baldly stating, contrary to all common sense, that things printed in hundreds of news sources are not notable. There are plenty of things that are not notable, e.g., Paris Hilton, except insofar as that people are interested in them. So I don't quite get the 'this is not notable, because it's only printed because people find it interesting' 84.9.39.232 22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News sources will publish whatever will get them readers. If they think that goat sex will attract attention, then they'll write about it. Read the article, and come to your own conclusion. Sean William@ 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I happen to disagree with Sean William as to this particular article, but I see no signs that this was a bad faith nomination or designed to make a point. The article falls into one of the gray areas under WP:N and WP:NOT, and reasonable people can disagree about how those principles apply.--Kubigula(talk) 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have enough of an inclusionist in me to say keep. Chronicling ephemeral phenomena like this has traditionally been one of Wikipedia's fortes. On BBC or the Guardian people can read about this as 'funny news of the day'. Here they can read about this and then e.g. browse categories with similar things, getting some context. Make sure that the article treats the person involved appropriately, certainly, but the goat can be kept. Haukur 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you perceive as a forte, I perceive as a failing. (H) 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, then, and that's all right. Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_so_great mentions Wikipedia:Unusual articles as one of the strengths of Wikipedia so I'm probably not the only one who thinks of it like that. Which doesn't mean you're wrong, of course. Haukur 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This reminds of Cindy the Dolphin, one of several fantastic articles we list at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability though, but that is not a concern either as this article stands on its own merits, meeting and and exceeding our policy standards. Strange, yes, but this is something that most definitely passes the 100 year test, and is quirky enough that I wouldn't be totally shocked to see its inclusion in the likes of Encyclopedia Brittanica. You know, one of those "real" encyclopedias. RFerreira 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sincerely think this will pass the 100 year test? Or show up in a regular encyclopedia? If either of those happen I will eat my user page. (H) 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even if nothing else, there'll be stupid trivia questions like "Who was the only goat to have been legally married to a human?" or something like that. I'd say be prepared to eat your user page. McKay 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to enduring popular and media notoriety. --Itub 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There aren't too many notable goats. Rose though happens to be an exception, as shown by the massive news coverage covering her marriage and untimely demise, her life and times if you will. Rose lived, she loved, she achieved international fame. [5]. Our job is to chronicle that existence impartially, with all the savoir faire wikipedians bring to their excellent bios of our animal friends. Frankly, I detect a strange species bias in some of the comments here. We need to fight that. --JJay 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yet another test case that demonstrates how incredibly crippled and inane the WP:NOTABLE guideline is. Per wikipedia's policies this is notable an obvious keep. Per a better policy, probably not. But unfortunately, people who have attempted to amend WP:NOTE are generally blocked by deletionists. WP:IAR is not the answer here because it would quickly devolve into deletion discussions being WP:IDONTLIKEIT (already the case with most list deletions). The answer is not running these AFDs. The answer is amending the notability guideline. --JayHenry 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the notability guideline. I think it's great, it makes so much sense. It neatly meshes WP:NPOV with WP:RS. Can you propose something better? So what if some articles get included that wouldn't get mentioned otherwise. Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper. I think having a seperate article for each of the pokemon is overkill, but does it hurt us having them? No. Who cares if some goat gets an article? Does somehow covering more of human knowledge make wikpiedia worse somehow? McKay 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll admit that my first reaction was: "A goat!? What the hell?" However, after overcoming my gut speciesist response and actually looking at the article ... yes, this goat is notable. That a goat is more notable than myself is perhaps a somewhat depressing thought, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. I don't think refocusing the article to be about the goatsex is necessarily a good idea (as it complicates matters with regard to WP:BLP), but it's worth considering. However, I see no merit in the arguments for deletion. "It's a goat, for Pete's sake" is a good first reaction, but an inadequate deletion rationale. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The goat itself is not notable, and is a (hoax?) name established by the western media, the actual event can be mentioned in an article about bestiality. Delete this and merge into another article as it provides little context on its own. Are we going to mention every case of bestiality? Bleh999 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that no case of bestiality could ever warrant an article? I definitely think it's inappropriate to list every case of bestiality, but I do believe in the primary WP:Notability criterion, essentially being "newsworthy = notable". It makes sense for so many reasons. Do you have a criterion that's better somehow? McKay 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that the goat itself is not notable (the article is named after the goat), the story is notable only because of media coverage. Since the goat is dead, the article will never rise above stub class, this is wholly unencyclopedic to have an article on a name of a goat assigned by the media just because of a bestiality case in Sudan. If it were apart of an article that included a lot more information about related cases, then it might be encylopedic, you can make an article about every story in the 'odd news' section of a newspaper, it would be easy to fill up wikipedia with 1000s of such articles, what makes this story so special? I should add that it would be more encyclopedic to have the article named after the individual accused of bestiality with the goat, and the laws regarding his case in Sudan, but then I bet many of the people voting 'keep' would be voting delete as he is non notable. Bleh999 08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most notable goat since the Three Billy Goats Gruff, and probably more renowned than any of the famous or fictional goats we already cover. BBC obituary establishes notability for me. --DeLarge 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, verifiable, etc. --Myles Long 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N#Notability is not temporary: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.". Encyclopedias record things of long-term notability. akuyumeTC 09:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really what I call a 'short burst' though. I was frequently popping in and out of the 'most read' section of the BBC News site for over a year, and the story was spread over a year with an obituary. How often do you get an obituary for an 'and finally' story - an obituary about the GOAT, noless? This is more than a simple amusing news item. --Darksun 10:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might be grotesque, agreed, but if it hadn't been for the verifiable facts in the article, I would have believed that it is an urban myth, if I would come across it at some billboard press magazine or sensational and unreliable website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that collects verifiable facts, isn't it? Is it a notable fact? You bet. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP requires sourcing. This is sourced. If someone wanted to edit it to remove the proper names (the name of the owner, and the initial of the husband; the goat does not fall under BLP), I would think that faintly silly, since they're in the sources; but deleting it is political correctness. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed earlier today that the original 'man marries goat' article was in the top 5 most emailed stories on the BBC News website. This was the original story, and those emailing the story would not be aware that the goat has since died, but it is clearly of very long-term interest. 87.74.13.55 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's all been said. Maaaaah! Johnbod 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', popular, notable, verifiable. bbx 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come on guys, this is just silly. If this warrants inclusion for notability, what doesn't? Xihr 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that fails the guidelines at WP:NOTE. This doesn't. --Darksun 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes tony, you are correct, NOT is a policy, Notability is a guideline. But this has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, except that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we shouldn't just be deleting articles because we don't like them. this goat clearly passes all of the sections in WP:NOT. So your arguments, though correct, are meaningless. McKay 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable goat, referenced sufficiently. I believe the original article was in 2004, and 3 years later, a further news story appeared. That is sufficient evidence of long-lasting media attention. There are many "news-worthy" topics that don't get articles 3 weeks after they took place, yet we have articles on them on Wikipedia. Neil╦ 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure newscruft. Although publicized, the incident may be considered notable in an "Odd News of the Week" way, but the goat and her "marriage" are not encyclopedic. María(habla conmigo) 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of questions. you say that this is "pure newscruft" but we don't have any policies saying "newscruft" isn't allowed. Also, what makes you think that the goat and the marriage are not encyclopedic. Could you please clarify? McKay 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newscruft has already been cited above as a reason for deletion. Although I recognize it's not a policy, it closely ties in with WP:NOT in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, relating to News reports. "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." I think that strongly relates to this subject matter. María(habla conmigo) 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure. That policy does apply here. Just like Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This goat is not a dictionary entry, nor is this goat something that has been in the news for a brief period of time. The goat had news references spanning 3 years. That doesn't really qualify as a "brief period of time". McKay 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the initial newsbreak, its subsequent rehashings of the same story, and the humorous obituary that followed a year later, this news event is at best a blip on the radar. I would categorize it as both brief and unsubstantial. María(habla conmigo) 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and not an archive of water-cooler stories that got emailed around. The "obituary" was described as a joke, and the naming "Rose" was described as a joke. This is not a jokebook (My Pet Goat?) She had a kid before she died. Was her "husband" assumed to be the father under Sudanese law? Was the rape a crime of passion, or was he just trying to get his neighbor's goat? Also agree with María. Edison 18:16, 11 June 2007 (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.