Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brokeback Mountain parodies (old)

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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Results:

• Delete - 13
• Keep - 15
• Weak Keep - 02
• Merge - 05

[edit] Brokeback Mountain parodies

Doesn't this fall under Wikipedia is not a web directory? Or, more specifically, Wikipedia is not an indexing service for dailysixer, gorillamask, youtube, and ifilm? Melchoir 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Fixed the lists of links; neutral on whether this needs an article. Melchoir 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dailysixer linked to 10 times, UE MadCow257 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. WarpstarRider 03:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not happy with the state of this article either, however it does stop the flood of edits to the Brokeback Mountain main article regarding parodies of the film, since there have been so many. It needs signficant Clean-up but if proper criteria for inclusion was set it would serve a better purpose. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... what do you think ought to be kept? You could even clean up the article right now, if you're willing. Melchoir 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, violates WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just to stop the flood of thousands of Brokeback whatever articles. -- Oscar Arias 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to stop the flood of Brokeback whatever articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eivind^speak! 06:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per TerenceOng.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep harmless. WP:NOT downplays "mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article." The key word is "mere". There is already content beyond the collection of links. There could be more discussion about the phenomena, and over time that will come. -- Samuel Wantman 09:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, gee, let's write articles about discussion that 'could' take place. 'Article' fails WP:NOT. Proto||type 14:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles about discussion that 'could' take place are called "stubs". -- Samuel Wantman 10:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep because of news results -- Astrokey44|talk 15:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it was a media trend at the time. Qyd 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SamuelWantman. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Astrokey44 Funky Monkey 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is really informative for the people who need this info. While I'm no expert, it seems that this whole parody thing is becoming more and more important. My hat is off to the editors who have addressed the Brokeback parody genre with the full encyclopedic treatment of which it fully deserves. -- JJay 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT. Andy Saunders 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT.--Isotope23 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Chanlord and Oarias. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article could be better, but there are lots of parodies of this already. ProhibitOnions 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect: I think a reference to this subject should be mentioned on the Trivia section of the Brokeback Mountain page. Tutmosis 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and appears to be another joke similar to what was Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain (now a redirect). Remove it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cultural impact... was not a joke, it was a (failed) refactoring of the already too big Brokeback Mountain main article. It didn't survive because its aim was too ambitious for this moment, not because its contents were not valid. Diego 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Brokeback Mountain (the entire list doesn't need to be merged in; a brief reference to parodies would be fine.) Catamorphism 00:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:NOT. Every fad on the internet does not deserve a detailed article. --DJH47 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some have speculated that Brokeback Mountain lost the Best Picture Oscar because of the parodies of the movie. So, I think that makes this a notable topic. You can't get much more notable than being one of the biggest "Best Picture" upsets in Academy Awards history; and this topic of parodies has, the opinions of some, been linked to the upset. I say keep, but cleanup or possibily merge. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a very new article (the oldest content is from 9 days ago) and its nomination seems premature and raises the question of whether there should be a minimum age requirement before an article can be nominated for deletion. It does have an extensive collection of links but they do seem "content-relevant" to the unique subject matter as opposed to just for "mere" collection's sake, the later of which seems to be the main concern of the WP:NOT, and they're no more extensive than many of the references/footnotes in thoroughly credited articles. It might not be a bad idea to review/revise the WP:NOT to take this type of article into better consideration. Also, the Brokeback parodies are not just an Internet fad. The film was extensively parodied across other mediums including television and print and is arguably the most parodied movie of the year. They deserve their reference amongst the film's cultural impacts and given the considerable length of the excellent main article, a separate page for their inclusion is not unreasonable. Overall, I recommend a "Keep" and to give this article a reasonable amount of time to develop. Santress 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There must never be any policy that makes any article immune from AfD, under any circumstances. Moreover, articles are not deleted because they are underdeveloped. Articles are deleted when they are irredeemable and any development would be a waste of effort, so a policy against deleting new articles would be especially unwise. Melchoir 08:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I can see your point but the quality and content of an article is often related to its development and nine days seems premature to nominate an article for deletion unless it contains a very obvious violation of Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Santress 09:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But I am saying that present "quality and content" are ultimately irrelevant. We are here to judge whether an article on a given topic should exist at all. Melchoir 09:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It seems they do factor in here since the collection of links (content and even arguably quality) has been cited for many of the delete reasons. Take care & happy voting, Santress 10:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This page came into being because there was on balance too much information about parodies in the Brokeback Mountain article, and it was decided to move the information to a new page. Many people have contributed to the article, and by Melchoir's assesment, this is a "waste of effort" and "irredeemable". But why? Who is being hurt? What is the damage? I was unaware of these parodies before I came accross them here. The contributors don't mind contributing, and it is a current cultural phenomena. I think the burden of argument here should be on the delete side to make a case for what makes this irredeemable. The phrase "Brokeback Mountain parodies" gets about 17,000 hits on google. Without the quotes it is about a quarter million. This is a notable subject. -- Samuel Wantman 10:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Is it so notable that every single video hosted by dailysixer.com needs a link? If you were to delete the spam from this article, you'd get maybe four items, which belong at Brokeback Mountain under Trivia. What is being hurt is the mission of Wikipedia, which is to write encyclopedic articles, not to generate lists of external links, no matter how embellished. WP:NOT is policy for a reason. Melchoir 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The article started out looking like this. I too think that it doesn't need most of the links. That is an argument for editing the page and not deleting it. That someone chooses to add too much information does not hurt the mission of Wikipedia. What hurts is deleting articles that people have put effort into without helping to tailor the articles into something that would be worthwhile keeping. What hurts is having discussions about deletion instead of putting efforts into constructive improvements. A comment about the over-abundance of links on the talk page would have been much more constructive. I have not had much time at Wikipedia in the last few days, and much of it has been distracted by this AFD. -- Samuel Wantman 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I fix up far more bad articles than I nominate for deletion. In this case, I didn't think it would be worth my effort; you are welcome to disagree, but actions speak louder than words. Discussions about deletion do not hurt the encyclopedia; they help by clarifying the application of policy for new and old contributors alike. The use of Wikipedia to advertise web content must not be tolerated; for that message, AfD speaks louder than a talk page. I am sorry if individual people find this AfD distracting, but I think it is necessary to the furure of this article, even if it is kept without consensus, which seems to be the case. I'll do the honors of removing the spam, since no one else seems willing. Melchoir 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly an Internet phenomenon and just like The Smurfs and communism or Chuck Norris Facts its silly but still something that has a place here. It only need time to evolve since it is still a current event. It has even garnered media attention Google news on "Brokeback Mountain" parodiesUKPhoenix79 11:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: per Chanlord, Santress, Oasis and UKPhoenix79. Interestingstuffadder 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting related collection; and while each of these parodies may not deserve an article in its own right, in aggregate they do. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If they're still talking about these recuts a year from now, give it an article. As is, every piece of flatulence the internet produces is not worthy of an article. Denni ☯ 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is not a random internet fad, this is tied to a mainstream, Academy-awarded movie and has been reported in non-Internet mainstream media. Diego 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into Brokeback Mountain under new "Parodies" header. If it becomes a significant and long-lasting meme, like All Your Base, etc., then re-create as separate article if necessary. --Icarus 04:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean Dunemaire 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Icarus -Pal5017 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge to main film article. -- infinity0 15:32, 19 March 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.