Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badger Badger Badger (2nd 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The result was withdrawn by nom, no deletion !votes. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badger Badger Badger

Badger Badger Badger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Another previous deletion discussions can be found at Talk:Badger_Badger_Badger#AfD_discussion - from 2004

The discussions were both largely characterised by people saying "this is famous" or "this is well known" or "I think it's funny". I'm surprised it needs saying, but this is not the requirement for a subject to be notable and worth its own article.

Over the last two years, the article has descended into a list of all the different spoofs that people have made of it and posted on YouTube or on their blogs or the other versions of the cartoon made by Pickering, none of which have become as well known as the original. Cut out all the fancruft and you're left with a stub that should be merged with another article. The only reliable source was a PC World mention as being one of the top five Internet fads[1], and that doesn't look non-trivial to me.

I like this animation and I know plenty of people who have heard of it but despite my making requests on talk pages of the article and Weebl's cartoons, no one has come up with any reliable sources and has just reverted mine and User:Gwernol's action to redirect it to Weebl's cartoons.

I believe this article should be merged with Weebl's cartoons#Badgers and I have already put some suitable text in that article. I will happily drop the deletion nomination if someone can find two non-trivial, reliable sources on the topic so that it meets WP:WEB. I don't think there's any chance of Badgers having won "a well-known and independent award" or "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" so let's focus on notability.

I'm sorry to bring such a long request here, but I've got the impression that regular editors of the article are going to be over-defensive (sorry if that's not AGF) so I thought it best to open it up to a wider audience. GDallimore (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is an even earlier AfD on the article's talk. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)

• Keep Notability is pretty clear on this one, as was mentioned in the previous AfDs. The only thing that needs citations are the other facts in the article, and theese look pretty well cited to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• How is notability asserted? All the sources look like they're primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Internet fad. Looks like the pcworld.com link(watch Shortlist - Internet fads video) which is a reliable secondary sources that is independent of the subject, fits the notability requirement. SunCreator (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Between the PC World Article, which has already been posted, and an assortment of lesser mentions (Such as the one in; Houston Chronicle Computing Column. Dwight Silverman, Houston Chronicle, 14 February 2004), and the numerous articles about its use at high school / collegiate sporting events, notability is pretty well established at this point. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep with conditions If more reliable sources can be found, keep. If cannot be found, remove unreferancable material and Merge with creator's article.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Disgustingly notable, but notable nonetheless. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I think this is a bit low on the reliable sources meter, but I added a couple that should make a stronger case. The Guardian thinks that Dancing Badgers helped Weebl's Stuff win its Yahoo awards, so that's something (also an argument for merging, I suppose). Desperately needs the cruft cleaned up. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep has been covered by outside sources. At worst merge to the Internet phenomena article. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctanct Keep. I happen to think the sucess of badger badger badger is undeserved, but it is definately one of the better known internet memes. This does by its nature mean that searches for online references of the sort normally required are swamped by its popularity, making find the desired results like finding a needle in a haystack. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 08:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Dhartung - glad someone managed to find something. The very popularity of the animation seemed to be working against it because finding something reliable amongst all the cruft seemed impossible. I'd tried searches of some UK national newspapers and found nothing, but hadn't got around to the Guardian yet. I withdraw the nomination and will tidy up the article instead. GDallimore (Talk) 09:20, 17 April 2008 (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.