Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Barney humor (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 keep. John254 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Barney humor
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is unencyclopedic, as it's based solely on opinion (most of it unsourced), contains inappropriate content, and is simply a breeding ground for POV and advertising of third-party links/sites. Maybe some of it can be moved to the Criticism section in the original Barney & Friends page, but overall there is nothing notable about Barney haters that it warrants its own article. Beemer 69  chitchat  02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You know, for a silly topic, there seems to be a whole lot of references.  Haven't gone through them in detail, but it seems to be better sourced than a lot of more serious articles.  Reserving judgement. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is full of fact and truth. Everything has been studied and referenced. Angie Y. (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of sources within the article, and the show's noteriety as an annoyance and against the educational mission of PBS came with the popularity of the show; it actually one of the first children's shows to inspire such a response coming in tune with the rise of the Internet. If there are any issues with the article, they're usually quickly taken care of like they are in the parent Barney article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If I'm outvoted, fine, but most material therein is non-notable and will likely be removed, as the likes of "jihad.net," some writer named "Brian Bull" (who's not even on Google) and cheap videos made by YouTube hacks are not noteworthy in the slightest. And with all due respect, Angie, "everything" therein is not referenced, and your vote is biased because you've trolled on related pages in the past declaring your hate for the "pathetic" show. Beemer 69   chitchat  05:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - not sure which Google you were using, but putting in "brian bull" barney yields the WP article first, then numerous "Day of the Barney" links. P.S. the Jihad.net website was covered in The Guardian in 2003 as referenced, well before this article was created. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Touch-ups are likely, but this looks like a valid article to me. I don't know if everything included in necessarily "anti-Barney," such as the radiographic study performed by the annals of improbably science -- seems kinda neutral to me.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covers a valid subtopic relating to Barney & Friends, and is a reasonably well sourced and structured article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also, the New York Times can't be wrong. ;-)
 * "Wikipedia, the community-edited online encyclopedia, maintains a useful history of anti-Barney Internet humor — from the “Jihad to Destroy Barney,” which has evolved into a role-playing game, to fictionalized stories and images documenting Barney’s womanizing and crack habit."--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is not about a PoV, so much as it is about a phenomenon which has spanned a rather lengthy time and crossed a relatively large number of media.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination indicates that there is material worth retaining and so is implicitly proposing a merger for which deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article needs alot of work to remove the original research and unreliable sources but it seems there are one or two reliable sources on the subject (Guardian, LA weekly etc). -- neon white talk 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely silly topic with very small scope. It's just not notable, merge with Barney. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability is established. Sources listed are mostly tangential, and provide little to no substance to the article --T-rex 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the appropriate criterion is Reliable sources - there is no Tangential sources. Sports Illustrated, The Seattle Times, EFF, feature films, yadacetera are sufficiently reliable. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A legitimate article about a response to a multi-million dollar franchise. To reject Barney is, in some western cultures, a rite of passage into being a pre-teen.  Mandsford (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A negative (and with good reason) response, at that. Barney and his bumchum cohorts (and those retarded kids he masturbates) represent not only mental retardation, but the negative effects of today's culture on modern-day children, who mutate into mindless sacks of drivel with every second that they watch this godforsaken nonsense called Barney and "Friends". Plus the theme song and the dino characters suck, and Barney sounds like a retard. Angie Y. (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In comparison to you, I'm afraid, Barney sounds like William F. Buckley. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't go there, girlfriend.--Father Goose (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anti-Barney humor is a legitimate folklore topic.  Barney jokes and parodies are the subject of a full chapter in  Sherman and Weisskopf's Greasy Grimy Gopher Guts: The Subversive Folklore of Childhood.  It's grown to be something worthy of a separate topic; this article is well referenced, and there's nowhere to merge it without either loss of information or undue weight. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Article needs to be checked for any Original Research. But the subject is certainly notable. John Sloan (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge only what is verified, per nom. Cliff smith  talk  17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is way better written even than I expected such an article to be. If it matters at all, I see Barney jokes online all the time. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because Barney is a very famous internet meme. There are barney jokes all over the place and they are mostly funny. --Bb22493 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - None of the nominated reasons meet the WP:DP criteria, and to some extent have been refuted (many sources are established). As for "inappropriate content", well WP:NOTCENSORED. And the "breeding ground for POV"... so what else is new throughout the entire WP-land? The topic is developed enough that merge to main is not needed. Nothing new has been argued since the first AfD nomination; since then it has ceased to be a dumping ground for satirical Barney songs. With some cleanup, it will also cease to be a dumping ground for the nn "Barney Bunch" material and any other fluff. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a charter member of the Barney Haters' Club, I can do no other.  :p  (Man, that was a long time ago.)  More seriously, the listed reasons are not grounds for deletion.  Rogue 9 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 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.