Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Badger Don't Care


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Honey Badger Don't Care

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't believe this article passes the criteria of notability. At best perhaps a side note in the popular culture section of Honey badger, but as a 72-page book about funny animals it is hardly unique, and I don't think it's relation to a Youtube video (no matter how popular or notable itself) makes this book itself notable. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm in the process of trying to find reliable sources for this, but I have to admit that part of me does think this might best serve as a redirect or better yet, an article about the video and the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. The more I find, the more I think that it's past time to create an article about the honey badger video. The video has created a book and a potential tv series for its narrator, so I think that counts as "notable". I'm going to work on it now and when it's finished I'll come back to vote for a redirect, but not until I've finished the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Redirect to The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger. Most of the articles I've found that mention the book are more generally about the video, so I think that this would be best served as a redirect to the above article. It would probably be a good idea to keep the article's history in case there are enough independent and reliable reviews of the book to where a separate article would be necessary. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Changing vote to keep. I kept at it and I think that between the two reviews and some new articles I've found, that the book has just enough attention to warrant keeping. A good part of me still thinks that it might be better as a redirect to the article about the video, but the book does have coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep It's notable and now referenced. Please note that quoting from the dust jacket (without commenting on the quote) is a copyright violation. Edgepedia (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for letting me know that! I hadn't really been told anything about that, so I'm glad to have that clarified!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep per Edgepedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2012 (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.