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. There is still no consensus in this AFD with disagreement over it's notability. There is some support for a merge and this closure should not prevent agreement being reached on the talk page for a merge. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cowznofski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Only one source. No relevant hits found anywhere. Last AFD from 2008 was "no consensus" with all but one "keep" !vote being a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. The only sources turned up in the last AFD were tangential one-sentence mentions and/or primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wow. Another one of those sparkling older AfDs where the closing admin just counted votes rather than examine the policy arguments, which TPH correctly states comes down to "It's notable because, err, I think it probably ought to be, if I bothered to look at the article, which would have taken more than the 5 seconds I want to spend collecting another edit" statements. This time, however, let's stand on the real black-letter relevant guideline, which is that editors seeking to keep an article at AfD are required to provide in-line citations attesting to the subject's notability, shall we? I don't believe there are any.  Ravenswing  21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit rich to talk about reading the prior AFD discussion and not bothering to look at things, and in the same (metaphorical) breath not notice the 5 sources that Hobit pointed to in that very same discussion, or the fact that Hobit and TenPoundHammer agreed that a merger was acceptable. So we really shold be asking why we are back here at AFD. TenPoundHammer agreed with a merger. Why didn't xe enact what xe agreed with? Why has xyr only edit since the last time that xe nominated this article for deletion, and then agreed to a merger, been to nominate it for deletion again? It took three edits to nominate it for deletion this second time. It would have taken two to do what TenPoundHammer actually agreed with the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell you what, Uncle: you argue the things you want to argue, and I'll argue the things I want to argue. I am not required to address what Hobit and TPH opined was an acceptable way out, nor agree with it, nor parse out their motives for not performing a merger. That being said, it's quite reasonable to infer that if I don't believe there are any cites attesting to the subject's notability, I must not think much of the sources proffered in the previous AfD. Not only would it be reasonable, it'd be accurate, because I don't.  Ravenswing  21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not reasonable at all when it isn't what you wrote at all. What you wrote was that the policy arguments boiled down to a bare assertion, when in fact the policy arguments quite clearly did not boil down to that at all, and not only did involve pointing to sources but even involved reaching an agreement on merger. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable meme from a particular time and place, including but not limited to the early history of Mad magazine and its Alfred E. Neuman character. There are also tie-ins to Ernie Kovacs whose exploration awaits a dedicated researcher. The nominator's statement that there are no relevant hits to be found anywhere is mistaken, unless it is qualified by the later sentence that the hits appear to be brief, in which case I think the cumulation of relatively brief hits is ultimately sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you need to wash out your ears, because in fact Newyorkbrad said nothing at all about xyr view of you. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYB, do you have any sources you'd care to proffer to back up your assertion of notability? That being said, if this meme is as central as all of that to the Neuman character, why isn't it at all mentioned in the lengthy and heavily footnoted Neuman article?  Ravenswing  17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Condense, and Merge with Mad Magazine. Qworty (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pick one. You cannot have both. If you opine for both then your argument will simply have to be discounted as self-contradictory. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though merge with Alfred E. Newman might be reasonable, I think the term predates AEN. I can no longer see the Tribune article reference in the article , but it appears to to be solely about AEN and Cowznofski. [1] also seems to have a fair bit, but again behind a pay wall. Disclaimer: I was notified on my talk page about this discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Alfred E. Newman. Give the readers an article with some substance. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no pressing need to delete given. But please everybody, Alfred E. Neuman with a "u". Opbeith (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (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.