Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How now brown cow (3rd 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 no consensus‎ and it appears unlikely one will emerge here with established editors split Star Mississippi 00:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How now brown cow

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)

Not notable. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It's well known, it's discussed in sources, both serious and comedic. Just "Not notable" is a cliche of arguments to avoid in AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phrase has SIGCOV in multiple scholarly articles/books for its role in elocution instruction. Passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what those are? I'm not seeing significant coverage in the sources currently cited. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I don't mean to be rude, but I'd appreciate if you could cite some sources here. The article only lists two somewhat scholarly sources. Toadspike [Talk] 23:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything to say about it beyond "It's a phrase sometimes used to teach diphthongs"? If so, what? If not, maybe it should be merged to Elocution or something. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elocution. Looking at the available sources in the current article and the AfD from 15 years ago, the available sources are almost exclusively uses of the phrase in elocution lessons. I don't see how we're going to get around the overreliance on primary sources, and I don't think this meets WP:WORDISSUBJECT. hinnk (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no proof it passes WORDISSUBJECT, as the two "keep" !voters have simply done a WP:SOURCESEXIST. Previous AfDs have not given proof either besides pointing to Google and saying "there must be sources out there!" Hint: there are none. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete I very recently used this article to assure a colleague I wasn't slurring him. I know that's not Wikipedia's express purpose. But it's not expressly not, either. I'd wager there are other situations where this pagelink might be useful. Plus, it's a "thing people say", so typing it should get them something here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that is in fact expressly not Wikipedia's purpose. If you think there should be something there, demonstrating how it meets the notability guideline or recommending a reasonable alternative to deletion would be more useful than a WP:USEFUL argument. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the purpose of assuring colleagues we aren't slurring them. I get how encyclopedias aren't dictionaries. There's not much here, but it's already more than a straight definition. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the article helps one determine whether it can be a slur (or its pertinence to GNG). Nardog (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you haven't pictured my colleague here as a black guy. And I'm not trying to say it passes GNG. Lots of subjects on this site don't; not as many survive two prior AfDs. Your "not notable" and my "it's useful" are both poor arguments. So we're even. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See here for backstory, now that you're "in on" the (half)joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "not notable" I mean I'm unable to find reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, trust me. I saw Pierre Viette with his so-called Ethmia pylonotella and Lorymodes australis earlier today, too. Sometimes the Inclusionists just win. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People can also go to a phrasebook to look it up, the question is how an encyclopedia article expands on that. So far, nobody has come up with anything, and the only keep arguments are that the article seems useful and that sufficient amounts of votes will allow the "inclusionists" to win easily. See WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stuff like Chōjirō, Claude Sionnest and Floating Foundation of Photography stick around despite the guidelines, with far more uncited material and far less attention. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but I did employ it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I haven't seen any Deletionists ever explain why burning this iffy little obscurity (or any other like it) might help. Help who? Do what? So many questions. I'm willing to change my tune for one good answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If standards are not enforced on Wikipedia by removing failing articles, then it sets a precedent that almost anything is allowed - ultimately dragging down the quality of the encyclopedia. People who regularly create AfDs (I hesitate to say "deletionists", because it implies an urge to delete everything) are often stereotyped as enjoying tearing down other people's work and being OCD about annihilating the encyclopedia. On the contrary, they are attempting to increase the quality of the encyclopedia by helping editors not waste their time on unsalvageable, unhelpful articles, and dedicate it to ones with heavy potential for improvement. Notability failing articles are often rife with original research and inaccuracy due to the inability to find enough sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sold The amount of unsalvageable and unhelpful articles I've Randombuttoned into just since we've met has been pretty tragic, and enough is enough. I'm still glad this potential waste of someone else's time helped me when it did, though. That was then. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is exactly about how that is not an excuse to keep content. Coupled with the false dichotomy between GNG and WP:USEFUL, you seem to have a penchant for arguing against your own stated position.

I'm as much an inclusionist as the next person as long as I see more than passing coverage in reliable sources. In fact I nominated it precisely because I had questions about the phrase and I couldn't find answers in our article or reliable sources. We owe it to ourselves to keep out of the encyclopedia topics we have nothing to write about. I'll happily switch sides as soon as you show us reliable sources that don't just use, but discuss, the phrase to any meaningful extent. Nardog (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep, but rewrite~~ Delete "How now brown cow" is adequately covered in enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, if only barely. It is discussed [1] here on JSTOR (albeit indirectly) and [2] here on Sage. The article as it is is very short and minimally sourced, and lacks sources that establish SIGCOV: one of the three is WP:USERG. Given the consensus with Irregardless, which I nominated for deletion, the coverage this has as a linguistic subject seems sufficient for an article. Like Irregardless, the article should be expanded to use the phrase as a case study for elocution, like how Irregardless is used as a case study for prescriptivist and descriptivist linguistics. Needs a complete rewrite, but seems to fulfil WP:SIGCOV and WP:WORDISSUBJECT - again, if only just. Reconsidering these sources and comments below, the coverage here is so meagre I don't think it passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT anymore. The sources for Irregardless at least directly mentioned the word, but these don't. I think it would still maybe be possible to similarly use "how now brown cow" to discuss the teaching of diphthongs, but its coverage in reliable secondary sources is probably not sufficient. The article is also so short there would be no point in merging to Elocution. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "discussed"? The phrase is nowhere to be found aside from the title in either of those sources. There's not even a mention, let alone discussion. How do you suggest the article be rewritten when those are the best sources you can find? Nardog (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1: These pieces use the phrase in their titles, but they don't discuss it. They discuss phonemic awareness, not this phrase as such. Cnilep (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. But this AFD can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Critical discussion of the phrase here [3], example of usage here [4]. [5], usage of the phrase in genetics cases [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used here in language analysis [7] and the phrase being used to train multilingual chatbots [8]. Origins of the phrase here from Scotland [9] with footnotes for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link [3] from Oaktree is the same article as link [2] ("How Now Brown Cow: Phoneme Awareness..." at sagepub.com) from Masskito discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Can you quote some of that "critical discussion of the phrase"? Nardog (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Responding to Toadspike's query above, a few sources (in addition to what I've seen cited above, none of which suggests a change in my !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Acker, Speak with Confidence (Wiley), pp. 195-196
- Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture, p. 295, short reference but authoritative
- Andrew Wilkinson, "Spoken English in School," Educational Review, pp. 61-62
Keep. I have looked through Oaktree b and Dclemens1971's sources above. Some are passing mentions which do not count toward the GNG, but several are high-quality academic sources that show the widespread use of this phrase for speech training in several countries. The "origins of the phrase" link from Oaktree and "Speak With Confidence" from Dclemens are decent. Still a borderline case, but I lean keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:51, 26 September 2024 (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.