Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brokeback Mountain 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 was delete. The first two keep arguments are not grounded in policy or guidelines; another one is invalid because the previous AFD was properly referenced by another user. Aside from those there appears to be a clear consensus to delete. --Coredesat 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brokeback Mountain parodies

Brokeback Mountain parodies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (previous deletion proposal) – (View log)

unsourced, one of the only links makes no mention of Brokeback Mountain, sounds like OR, not a directory. Will (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Mostly uncited trivia. Oli Filth 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I recalled seeing this article here before, and yes my memory isn't failing me (yet). This article was listed before at afd on March 14, 2006 with result no consensus; in looking for the archive on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_14#Brokeback_Mountain_parodies I found that the archived debate had been removed and moved to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brokeback Mountain parodies (old). Not disclosing the prior debate (even though it ended with no consensus) is bad form; but moving archived debates around so that it will be difficult to find them is worse. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia list. Pharmboy 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Uncited trivia. If any can be referenced as notable due to non-trivial third party coverage, then perhaps those could remain, but doubt enough to justify an entire a separate list. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As trivia list, although some content can be merged to various articles mostly notably the main article.--JForget 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I just don't get deletionists. What an interesting treasure trove this article is. Why not keep it? Scarykitty 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting treasure troves belong on Geocities; this is an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep was a media trend, has some references (although lack of references is no reason for deletion). --Qyd 05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Uh... yes it is. Will (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think there is yet a workable definition of "trivia" that has community consensus. Without such a consensus, I think calling an article "trivial" is not a reason to delete. Even the page at WP:TRIVIA mainly focuses on trivia sections, and recommends that they be integrated into articles whenever possible. I am not opposed to deleting things, I am a deletionist at CfD discussion. But at AfD, I only believe an article should be deleted if it is clear that there is no way to create a reasonable document. To my way of thinking, that means, pure drivel, a POV rant, a subject that is inherently impossible to cite, etc... This page is none of these. In order for Wikipedia to succeed, we need to be tolerant of content that does not fit into our own image of what constitutes an encyclopedia. One person's view of trivia will be another person's dissertation topic. As Wikipedia is not paper, we can make a home for virtually any topic that can be cited and presented in an NPOV way. The alternative, deletionist approach will just create rancor and bad feelings while diverting all of our attention from more important tasks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lots of films and TV shows are parodied all the time, without their own parody lists. As mentioned above, just about everything in here can be merged into different articles or the main Brokeback Mountain article - if completely necessary, which most of it isn't. •97198 talk 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep due to the nominator's failure to properly reference the original AfD discussion. Andy Saunders 11:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to assume good faith that the nominator saw the need to rename the previous discussion to make room for this new one, and didn't know to disclose its existence. The error was promptly corrected by another editor. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Ugh again! Its a well known phenom and here are a few sources I found after one, yes one minuet of searching google news let alone anything else! The history of viral video and Film review: Cowabungle! both are from This month (July 6th and 25th 2007 respectively). Hell just google "Brokeback Mountain" parodies and you will see what one means.
p.s. why was my comment removed??-- UKPhoenix79 09:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was removed - looks like you first left a comment on the previous debate's page [1]. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete—there are articles on viral videos, but this particular topic does not seem to be the subject of any non-trivial coverage, at least not any referenced. As such, this is irredeemable OR. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The parodies are old news, as is the case with the film. It's been, what, two years since "Brokeback Mountain"? Nobody says "I'm Batman!" anymore either. Mandsford 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)