Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain

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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Redirect is necessary to meet the attribution requirement in GFDL. "Merge and delete" and "merge then delete" are opinions incompatible with the attribution requirement in GFDL. The "unlikely search term" argument is irrelevant. (Yes, there are complicated, cumbersome and error-prone workarounds that still preserve the attribution history but I see no justification to go to that extraordinary effort for this article. Redirects are cheap.)

Having said that, I personally found little worth merging. Perhaps the good content had already been moved. Anyone interested in merging more content may do so by reviewing the article's history. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I must have done a simultaneous vote close with Rossami. Anyways, I came to the exact same conclusion, result and the fact that I found little worth merging as well. Deathphoenix 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain

The article is meaningless and all its detail could simply be merged with Brokeback Mountain. However, seeing as how a portion of the information is already dealt with in the article suggested, this article should be deleted. "Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain" is an unlikely search item. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this article. The main article on the movie is a mainstream article, and there is no need to mention (gay or straight) hard-core porn like Bareback Mountain there. The existence of such porn and the importance attached thereto might convince otherwise neutral readers of the Brokeback Mountain article that gay men are obsessed with porn. I for one would be against any mention of the porn movie in the main article. Modus Vivendi 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant info then delete. We don't have an article titled Cultural impact of The Great Gatsby either. Monkeyman^(talk) 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your vote. I bolded "then delete" so that administrators do not immediately take to "merge" and ignore the rest of your decision. I hope you don't mind! Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Brokeback Mountain. --Ardenn 22:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Brokeback Mountain, but first convince editors in that article of not deleting the information about Bareback mountain. Diego 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Take any useful information and then delete, although I doubt very much there is anything worth taking that is not already in the Brokeback Mountain article. Batmanand | Talk 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per nom and Monkeyman. —ERcheck @ 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete as per suggested above. Folkor 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- as there is so little useful information it is not worth bothering.--Deglr6328 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ardenn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Brokeback Mountain. Unfortunately, we cannot merge and delete as page history must be recorded for GFDL purposes. Stifle 11:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. If there's an issue about listing a porn film parody, then that can be hashed out on the main article's discussion page. 23skidoo 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Most of the info in this article is already (or could be) intergrated into the main BBM article a proper. As for the Bareback Mountain gay porn issue. That can be filed under the see also section or wherever necessary. --CharlieHuang 15:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every joke or parody or porn film connection is encylopediac enough to be in the main article. This article isn't even about "cultural impact," it's just stuff that wasn't mentioned in the BM article. eaolson 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for already mentioned reasons. Jabencarsey 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Her Pegship 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The nom states: this article should be deleted. The information should be merged and then the article should be deleted as it is an impausable search term. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:15, 28 February 2006 (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.