Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barackula

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 was Delete - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barackula

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

I don't think this is notable, despite a single article in the Chicago Tribune -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Do not delete, This spoof has made national news. It's being talked about on all of the major TV Networks. Important to popular culture. Jccort (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the Chicago Tribune article was not a review. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. --Pixelface (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Received lots of attention by the media check out this quote: The film's Web site, www.barackula.com, received much media attention, with MTV Networks first previewing the film on Super Tuesday. The video was also mentioned in the MSNBC program "Hardball with Chris Mathews." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccort (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Barrack Obama. Minor footnote. The producer is a nobody, who's "greatest" work is this mini-film. I don't see a need to write articles about every popular YouTube video, even if they do get mentioned in national press, nor to create articles on the producers of those videos. Gavin Barsky should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this. Bring up on talk:Barack Obama, where they will certainly decline to insert any mention of this. Speedy delete Gavin Barsky. -- Y not be working? 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barely a blip on the cultural radar. Flunks WP:WEB, too. y'amer'can (wtf?) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Verifiable, but WP:NOT#NEWS and there's no evidence that it has any encyclopedic notability outside a few news reports.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Barack Obama until it can be shown that this is a topic that goes beyond a news report a new article that presents notable portrayals of Obama and his campaign. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, a merge won't work -- it is simply not relevant in an article about the person named Barack Obama since he has no personal connection to the spoof. Unlike Ted Stevens and his series of tubes (with accompanying uber meme), Obama didn't create this video or otherwise do anything to cause it to be created: it might as well have been about Hillary Clinton or any other politician. Thus, it is rather irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about Obama. I would also point to WP:HTRIV#Recommendations for handling trivia and argue that this topic is not one that "can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject [Obama]." · jersyko talk 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How about an article covering the different media portrayals of Obama? The Obama Girl, Yes We Can, Barackula, and whatever else is out there? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, don't merge it to Barack Obama. It has no place there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Erik. We should follow his advice. Jccort (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose merge to Barack Obama. This is simply not notable, and is also not relevant in the Obama article. It's essentially trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for simple notability reasons. Would it stand up on its own if it were not parodying someone notable? Unlikely. Is it notable enough to include in the Barack Obama article? Not at all. So why should its notability come from association with Obama? Erik's idea for a "Media Portrayal" article might work, given the usual due diligence about trivia articles and POV forks (although it's a stretch to call YouTube and the blogs that link to it "the media"). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into a page with other portrayals of Sen. Obama and clean-up per Erik. DodgerOfZion (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It sounds like a fun video. However, the standards for notability of a film are very high on WP. Nor is it an important event in Obama's life story. It might find a place next to "The Obama Girl" in the article on his 2008 campaign if it takes off a little in popularity. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteThis discussion settled. A new article will be created portraying all of Obama's media portrayals.


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.