Talk:Cosgrove

Untitled

from VfD:

A (politically-motivated) neologism coined by some blogger somewhere, or so we are asked to believe. -- Hoary 05:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

PS that still stands as a description of the article in its original form. And I agree with all the reasons given below for deletion. But that was for any of several earlier versions of the article. Now that the article has no mention of its original, non-encyclopedic pseudocontent, I vote keep. -- Hoary 08:14, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

And one that was coined yesterday (January 9 2005). I cleaned up the article on the sole basis that we already have Santorum, and was unaware of the timeframe. Given that, this is an obvious attempt to Google bomb "Cosgrove" via Wikipedia and its mirrors. Delete. Uncle G 05:32, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
Delete shameful attempt at googlebombing. Lacrimosus 08:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gah. Spammers. Delete. - Vague | Rant 09:26, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as spam. Thryduulf 11:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Given the specificity of the article I did a +c0sgrove +v@ginal and +c0sgrove +v@gina google search. -> < 1.9 K hits. But "c0sgrove" shows many times as a surname not as a neologisme. I belive there is a non-notability issue on this article. Delete. Gtabary 12:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for several reasons, especially neologism. This should probably get an article if and when it becomes as well known as Santorum, however. Starblind 13:19, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologisms coined yesterday are by definition unencyclopedic. -- Curps 02:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, spam in a can. - content was 100% altered. Wyss 05:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do the same as Santorum: turn into a disambig, giving a brief mention of the neologism. Add to the disambig list Peter Cosgrove, the head of the Australian Army. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Modified article. Done. Keep. Uncle G 13:37, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Spam with mustard is still spam. Wyss 17:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a good thing that the article as I rewrote it isn't "spam with mustard", then. It's a substantial re-write. Uncle G 19:10, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. The article now attempts to disambiguiate along with documenting a trivial spam attempt. This is not encyclopedic, and gives this spam the attention it seeks. ...Spam with mustard. Wyss 21:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation was encyclopaedic. As Death phoenix pointed out, we have other such articles. Indeed, I took the format from one such article. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Keep in its current version. I've seen similar surname-based articles, and this includes ambiguations too. --Death phoenix 20:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they'd make appropriate VfD candidates too. Wyss 21:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Modified article again. Done. No spam. -- Curps 22:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The history comment was wrong, though. It wasn't a self-reference. The problem with self-references is portability. The text that you modified, however, would have been just as accurate had it been in (say) the paper version of Britannica. Not all occurrences of the word "Wikipedia" in an article qualify as self-references. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Yep! Keep now. Thanks, Curps. Wyss 22:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The logic of that seems flawed. If an article containing "A+B+C+D+E+G" is "Keep", the previous article with "A+B+C+D+E+F+G" must have been "Keep" (albeit with cleanup) as well. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It was VfD'd originally because the content was 100% "F". The article happened to have a relatively common name for a title and was rescued by transforming it into a disambiguation with zero reference to "F". Wyss 02:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep Grue 07:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep in present form -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keepmodified articleSc147 22:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep as modified. --Goobergunch|? 22:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion