Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badger Badger Badger Parodies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. - brenneman{L} 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badger Badger Badger Parodies

This page was created by Greenunity (talk · contribs) who also owns the site that hosts the "rogerrogerroger" animation. He spammed his link into Badger Badger Badgers–related pages [1] [2] [3] and when he was told to stop he created this article as a vehicle for his and other non-notable "parodies". Apart from that, this article is vanity and verges on WP:POINT. It explicitly does not include notable animations that are on Badger Badger Badger, and therefore is entirely non-notable by design. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Plenty of room for all notable parodies on Badger Badger Badger. --Allen 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per allen ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is NOT enough room on the main Badger Badger Badger article for all the parodies, this article is NOT giving provision for my own personal gain, I merely find it interesting how modern society has interpreted Badger Badger Badger and made it to suit popular facets of society like "Potter Potter Potter". I have only been a wiki member for a few months, I have now learnt and come to respect the rules and think I should be allowed to make mistakes in the first few days of my membership.--Greenunity 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that the animations are notable, I have found two in a German forum I have no affiliation with. http://limpies.milten.lima-city.de/m-gf/include.php?path=forum/showthread.php&threadid=101&PHPKITSID=69be37da7a596b3db3e372c8e6bddc6e there is a hyperlink to two animations at the bottom post. --Greenunity 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: the forum post that Greenunity is referring to is a list of animations that the poster thinks are (translating faithfully) "absolute crap". I don't think that qualifies as notable in the sense that Wikipedia means it. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect into Badger Badger Badger; there's still plenty of room in the original article. Delete due to Saxifrage's comment. It seems that we clearly already have editorial consensus that these links aren't notable. Andy Saunders 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: the page was created to contain animations whose links were rejected from Badger Badger Badger by consensus of its editors. Merging would just get them deleted again. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is correct and is why I created the article in the first place;-to facilitate all of the parodies. --Greenunity 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How exactly do the animations qualify as notable? Is it your own personal opinion-because I bet it is? There are some links to parodies in the main Badger Badger Badger article that have NO notability whatsoever-we've all heard of the japanese version-NOT. It seems to stem from your personal taste and prejudice. Finally, I don't spam, I was merely trying to contribute to the encyclopedia.--Greenunity 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There are guidelines for notability that are used to decide what to include in the encyclopedia and what not to. By all means, if you see utterly non-notable links at Badger Badger Badger (like that Japanese one—I quite agree), by all means do remove them. They don't belong. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a handy page and I feel it demonstrates adequately the scope of the internet meme and the associated spate of parodies. As such it is informative and in the best tradition of wikipedia entries. CMIIW 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: In the event of a keep outcome, do you think it needs any cleanup or is it fine as it is? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm glad we agree for once, in relation to notability. I would also agree that if the article stays, it should be cleaned up and expanded upon. As I have learnt, it truely is a fascinating sociological subject. The article needs to reflect that. --Greenunity 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't agree to anything. I was asking if the voter had an opinion on the current state of the article, since their rationale seems to be more about the subject of the article rather than the current contents. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Fine then.--Greenunity 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as for Greenuity, unless you really think all the parodies will fit on Badger Badger Badger. But I think soon it would get too cluttered and the list would be larger than the article. Matty-chan 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, I added the Japanese parody on the main page as as indication of "OMG! even those crazy ppl from japan knows about it! *adds*" If consensus determines that unnotable, I'm fine with removing it. deadkid_dk 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Badger badger badger, at best. Prefer delete. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 19 April 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.