Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illusions of immortality

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illusions of immortality

possible vanity, I did get two google hits in the first few pages that were relevant...but they were on the 2nd page or lower. The link to the award doesn't show any award that I can see, and I'm not sure that an award from that site is sufficient criteria for notability. I figured I'd try to get more eyes on this, I could be wrong.-- Syrthiss 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I poked around a bit looking for the award and was rewarded with a massive number of popups, so if it's there it's hiding. Without the award, there's no notability, and I'm not sure there would be even with it. BigHaz 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn per nom and WP:WEB. I think that the "award" is something like the fourth best-reviewed video on that day. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all flash cartoons. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep There is more valid info in the article now.

Comment there's a little more information, yes, but none of it really asserts notability per WP:WEB. BigHaz 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Explain how this isnt a valid article

There's nothing "invalid" about it. It's just that articles on online things need to be on subjects which live up to WP:WEB. In the case of this article, has the animation been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? Not that anyone can see. Has it won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation? Again, not that anyone can see (one comment above deals with the nature of the award the animation is credited with, and it's neither well-known nor independent). Is it distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators? Well, the site seems to be independent of the creators, but it's not well-known. Therefore, it isn't sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion. BigHaz 06:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, newgrounds features this work, including, but not limited to, Newgrounds [1], Addicting Clips[2], Flash Ring[3], Disaster Labs Studios (An Independent website featuring many popular webcartoons) [4] and even the original series was jokingly lampooned on something awful [5]. As evidenced by many of these sites, they aren't sponsered in any way by Paul Femiak. Saying that this cartoon is invalid is like saying Salad Fingers or Numa Numa are "worthless" because they are featured on the extremely popular and selective flash uploading site Newgrounds. Deleting this article would both be an insult to all flash cartoons as well as a loss to the entire wikipedia community. All the hard work in making this wiki would have to be redone without any help at all. Consider this before you delete it. In all senses, it works with the WP:WEB

Awards Won

[6] Awful Link Of The Day [7] Fourth Place Award

The awards side of things doesn't impress me in the slightest, as neither of them are "well known and independent". They're probably independent, but they're far from well-known. Fourth place by some standards applied to animations uploaded or reviewed (hard to tell from the link) that day isn't a well-known or independent award. Neither is being the "link of the day" at another site. As regards the well-known and indepedent site, I'll leave that to someone more versed in internet lore. The comparison to Numa Numa is not as impressive as you may think, either, as it would easily qualify via other sections of WP:WEB - the fact that it exists at Newgrounds isn't going to count against it. It also doesn't work in "all senses" with the standards we're citing, as it hasn't been the subject of publications independent of the site itself. BigHaz 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Explain?
    • Explain what, exactly? The remarks about the awards? Firstly, I'd contend that an animation which wins "Fourth Place for today" has hardly won a significant award. The same goes for something which wins "Link of the Day". Think about it - is a local "Battle of the Bands" trophy the same value as a Grammy? I should hope not. The remarks about the publications? One of the standards of WP:WEB is that the animation would need to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I see no proof that it has been that, so it fails that part of the test and therefore your claim that "in all senses, it works with the standard" is false. The comments about Numa Numa? Without getting into too much detail right now since we're talking about this animation rather than anything else, Numa Numa is substantially more well known than this animation is. At no point is this AfD saying that "all internet phenomena must be deleted from Wikipedia" or anything like that. What it's saying is that there are standards, "Illusions of Immortality" doesn't live up to those standards, so it should be deleted. It's nothing personal. BigHaz 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• It is a sad day indeed for wikipedia. This cartoon is a sensation and will only keep growing. Even if you delete it now, for ucalled for reasons, you will find yourself in pain as you do not have this article anymore.

If it'll keep growing in popularity, then you'll be more than welcome to recreate the page later on when it has. Just copy the text into a file on your computer and as soon as it meets those standards we've been talking about, bring it back online. BigHaz 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• A private company is making a toyline right now. Pictures are on the main page. Is the phenominon big enough?

Pictures are nowhere to be seen, and neither is any information about the toyline or the company making it. BigHaz 07:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They are there, look deeper friend, look deeper

They're not on the article itself (which is where they should be if you want this to be incontrovertibly notable). Neither are they at any of the external links when clicked. If they exist - and they may well - the links should be clearly marked. The fact that they aren't and don't lead to what you're claiming is further proof of a lack of notability. BigHaz 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. The only claim to notablility is the fact that it won an award. The award won was for 4th place for an award given every day. eaolson 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above and per crystal balling. Also, being a member of Something Awful, I can tell you that being the "Awful Link of the Day" is not an award in any way. It's basically a daily link submitted by a forum member or site visitor mocking shoddy work. --Wafulz 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wafulz. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the awards refrenced fall far short of what is needed. Something Awful ink of the day doesn't cut it -- Whpq 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigHaz and all others above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 13 August 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.