Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannulated cow

:{{la|Cannulated cow}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannulated_cow Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Cannulated cow}})

This is a Hoax Bogger (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bogger (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Zip notability, zip references. No idea how it lasted all this time. If there's any verifiable material, it should be moved to other articles, not separated out into a non-notable, non-noteworthy, non-cited article. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Striking per hroest, but it really needs fixing. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge? There is actually a potential reference here [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2635309/Hole-y-cow-Bizarre-images-reveal-farmers-monitoring-cows-eat-using-windows-sides.html], which may be the original source of the article, and another here [http://www.channel4.com/news/the-cows-with-holes-in-their-sides-video] and a US academic-institution mention here [http://www.csuchico.edu/ag/news/cannulation-13.shtml], so it isn't a hoax. However, unless the article can be developed and integrated and given a more logical title I don't think it is worth keeping as a standalone topic. I'd suggest it might be merged within Cannula as a sentence or two within the Veterinary use section using the above references. Libby norman (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Nope it's definitely not a hoax but there's no evidence of notability beyond this one source [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2635309/Hole-y-cow-Bizarre-images-reveal-farmers-monitoring-cows-eat-using-windows-sides.html]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Keep & rename it - Well after searching "fistulated cow" it certainly does exist & notability is certainly there, Although there does seem confusion with the name it seems "fistulated" is more common than "Cannulated". –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Merge the content (and the photo?) into the Veterinary Use section of Cannula. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Far from a hoax, it seems to be a standard method used in cow research. That said, should it have an entire article on its own? I don't know. A good article would need to talk more about how it is done and why with solid scientific references. LadyofShalott 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

::One wonders whether the nominator made any attempt whatsoever to search the scientific literature before simply stating, "this is a hoax", rather than attempting less drastic measures like an appropriate merger. LadyofShalott 15:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Have to agree the nomination wording is ridiculous -- not even a punctuated sentence, and capitalizing the word "hoax". Odd at best; bad faith at worst. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Info The correct term seems to be Fistualted Cow [http://daviswiki.org/fistulated_cow] [https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10151545437019031] [http://www.damninteresting.com/hole-y-cow/]--Sanford.poon (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

::Fistulated* Bogger (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep and rename the method is well known and described in biology textbooks but could be extended to other animals, instead of Cannulated Cow a better lemma would be Fistulated animal or Fistulation. According to Van Dyne et al the technique is used in Horses, Dogs, Geese, Hens, Pigs, Cattle, Rat and Sheep. Possible scientific references (reviews) are:
• Cottyn et al The estimation of nutritive value of dairy cattle feed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1963769
• Van Dyne et al Development and Use of the Esophageal Fistula: A Review http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3895540
• Holechek et al Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: a review http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3898308

:and these are just a few references that I could come up with as somebody not familiar with the field. Looking at the French and German article, the topic is discussed in the scientific and popular media, therefore I opt to keep it. --hroest 10:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and rename - I think hroest has the right idea. A more general article on the technique as used in various animals is both notable and useful. It should be distinct from the articles we currently have on fistulas and stoma (medicine). LadyofShalott 15:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• More possible refs (technical and popular):
• Turner and McIlwraith's Techniques in Large Animal Surgery [http://books.google.com/books?id=Dj0oHz_zJA4C&pg=PT403&dq=fistulation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=98mBVPzBM4u6yQTt-IDABA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=fistulation&f=false]
• "Standard Operating Procedure for Rumen Fistulation in Dairy Cattle" [http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/animals/documents/agsop7.pdf]
• "Fistula cows – with holes in their stomachs" [http://www.umb.no/iha-en/article/fistula-cows-with-holes-in-their-stomachs]
• "Techniques and Procedures for In Vitro and In Vivo Rumen Studies" [http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/25/3/855.full.pdf]
• "A PERMANENT RUMEN FISTULA CANNULA FOR COWS AND SHEEP" [http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/10/2/417.full.pdf]
• Keep and Rename -This is a no-brainer to me.Canyouhearmenow 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. See WP:ODD. I have seen this (disgusting) procedure on an episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

: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.