Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Newgrounds groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 delete, discounting 'votes' from accounts with hardly any contributions and IPs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Newgrounds groups

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Delete - this article is nothing more than vanity/spam for Newgrounds users, nor can I see it becoming anything other than that. This topic does not really need anything more than a paragraph in the Newgrounds article. Wikipedia is not a place to chronicle the accomplishments of whatever flash animation group you belong to, thats what Geocities is for. Wickethewok 04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." It's hard to determine this since the original article deleted is now gone, but comparing the initial creation versus now (or even before I started removing the cruft from the article), at least, shows substantial changes. cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete It contains things that have already been deleted, it's amazingly crufty, and pretty mcuch everything in the article is wholly non-notable. -- Kicking222 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as website vanity. JIP | Talk 14:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but merge what we have in the "Newgrounds" article. Groups are an important part of Newgrounds --TrashLock 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge/Redirect with Newgrounds. A lot of this is unencyclopedic, and also unverifiable according to sourcing guidelines, but there's probably a minimal amount of salvagable material. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Such authors that have similar themes like Joseph Blanchette and illwillpress (Neurotically Yours is a more detailed article) have not been deleted. Eklipsep 19:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • David Firth is another good one. He even has pages for four of his series. He has no references that aren't his homepage, newgrounds, his group's webpage, and what's essentially a blog that looks like an article. If that's all these groups need to have "independent verifiability", I'll write an article for them myself. Cableshaft 23 May 2006
  • Response - You raise a good point. Articles such as David Firth should be indeed be sourced. You may source them yourself if you like or it may be put up for deletion, though if they are sourced they can be kept. Citing other bad examples of articles, doesn't really help your case though... Wickethewok 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
David Firth can be put up for AfD if no sources can be found? Interesting. I'm not going to address this for now.cableshaft 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, anything can be put up for deletion, but anything can also be speedily kept if notable sources are quickly provided or whatever issue is otherwise addressed. Wickethewok 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Note I belong to one of the groups in question and therefore a bit biased (but how can you tell who is or isn't on this list anyway), but I sincerely believe at least one of the groups is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. Also it should be noted that the previous vote for the Clock Crew was done when their website was down and they were falsely considered to be a dead group. Cableshaft - 23 May 2006
  • Keep The clock crew has gone on for years and years, and isn't really just a part of "newgrounds" anymore. It's developed its own personallity. Heck, even if it didn't have NG it'd still be going just the same. The other groups, as a result, are the same thing. They aren't reliant on Newgrounds and as a result shouldn't just be merged into the Newgrounds article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.173.248.197 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep "Website vanity" is publishing a Wikipedia article about your personal website because nobody visits it and you're looking to get more hits. Some forum someone just starts up on InvisionFree or something is not notable and would be website vanity. However, groups on Newgrounds (especially the Clock Crew) have histories all their own, often separate from goings-on at Newgrounds entirely. This article is not about a website--it is about a large community of animators, akin to what the Ant Farm (group) was, except most publicity it recieves is on the Internet, and it's far larger. Ultimately, a group of artists who come together to make a variation on a sort of art. Architecture is to "fringe architecture" as animation is to "Clock/Lock/Glock animation." If you're looking for some hard evidence of notability, one member of the Clock Crew once donned a StrawberryClock suit and passed out fliers on the streets of Dublin, Ireland. There is video of this event if you would care to see it. 62bda02 - 23 May 2006
    • Actually - Actually what you are describing is spam, not vanity. Vanity guidelines state that "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created." This article has been solely written and maintained by such people. Hence, vanity article. Wickethewok 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
First, this article has not been "solely written and maintained" by such people. Care to address how User:Billpg, creator of the page, is writing about himself or something he's created? His user page and blog mention nothing of these groups, and it appears he mostly only cares about Newgrounds. Additionally, with the exception of the Glock Group and Star Syndicate vandalism, these people aren't writing about themselves or what they have done. They are writing about what other people have done in a group that they either are a member of or have seen significantly while visiting Newgrounds. If you check just about all edits of the Clock Crew page, for example, the only members referenced are 6 members that have not been around for years. Plus there is other criteria under vanity guidelines, addressed below.cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Heehee - Whether or not its relevant, those who voted keep (4 users) have a combined mainspace edit total of 7, only 1 of which is not to the article in question. Sometimes AFD is quite amusing. Wickethewok 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm too afraid to contribute anything but typos or grammar fixes on this site since it seems just about anything related to the internet gets branded with "non-notable" and deleted on here. I just don't have the time or the stamina other people on this site have to hunt down what I consider to be false or missing information, find an online article that makes the claim I'm looking for, and use it to justify the edit. - Cableshaft - 23 May 2006
That's too bad. If you feel that Wikipedia needs more useful internet-related articles, you should add them. Be bold, though aware you do need to back up your claims of notability and facts, which is the entire point of AFD. As I'm sure you realize, without such standards, Wikipedia would just become an assortment of a mess of arbitrary information. Best of fortune with future editing. Wickethewok 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so afraid of making new subjects after all this guideline reading I've been doing. Looking at some of the stubs you've made has given me a bit of faith, also. I guess you don't really have to post too much if you can reasonably see its notability, even without posting third party links. That's not so bad. cableshaft 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete/Smerge Possibly some useful material in there. Beno1000 00:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep - why delete, these things exist, and existance is reason to be included in wikipedia, isn't wikipedia supposed to be a user based all encompassing encyclopedia, if so, then why deny the existence of such groups, that would be like saying nazism doesn't exist because people didn't like it, keep it, and if this is vanity, then delete the several articles pertaining the single characters of flash animation including the animators/artists, because that would be considered vanity in that cause —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malteseclock (talk • contribs).
  • Very Strong Keep - As has been said before, these groups are a well known section of the site, Newgrounds.com. The information mentioned in it are based on actual events. Also, the groups have tried before to make independent articles regarding these groups, however, each time they were either deleted or merged into this section article. These groups represent a large faction within the subculture of Newgrounds and should be mentioned so that persons wishing to learn more about this subculture can better understand it. So since this can be used by persons to learn more information, it should stay due to its own merits towards better informing persons interested in Newgrounds and the internet culture that has grown around it. WinchesterLock 23 May 2006
  • ""Very Strong Keep""* - There are articles regarding all kinds of web fads and trends, and this site actually gave me a good bit more insight into the clock crew. I see no valid reason for it's deletation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.231.120 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep - The article serves as an accompaniment to the main Newgrounds article as the Something Awful Forums article does to the Something Awful article. If a list of minor characters from Danny Phantom warrants an article, why not four prolific groups of flash animators? The article on Jonti Picking, creator of Weebl and Bob, was nominated for deletion, but kept because Weebl and Bob is so prolific. This was aside from the fact that Weebl and Bob has an article of it's own. Dan Paladin, a talented animator who co-created a videogame for PS2 Gamecube and Xbox, was a prominent member of the Clock Crew. The Clock Crew sparked Dan's interest in the character Tricky the Clown, who makes a cameo appearance in the game. Moreover, most of the groups exist independantly from Newgrounds, utilizing their own websites, and sites such as FlashPortal, SheezyArt, and DeviantArt, to funnel flash output. If Newgrounds went down, these groups would stay up. Biddynorris 23 May 2006
  • Comment - Both "clock crew" and "lock region" have started threads on their message boards regarding this, so I would expect the vote spamming to keep coming. The clock crew's one is titled "We're Losing the Wikipedia Battle AGAIN". Amusing... Wickethewok 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, no kidding. I'm sorry for creating that thread now. I actually want to have a valid discussion regarding Wikipedia's own guidelines, but the comments by the rest of these people colors the whole discussion. I apologize for that. I made that thread before really closely researching the policies. cableshaft 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wish to note that by following the same reason that is expressed by Wickethewok that it seems that a page that discusses the accomplishments of groups should not be listed on Wikipedia and thus using that same logic that all discussions of all military battles and skirmishes should also be deleted from the site as well because they discuss accomplishments of groups of people. Wickethewok, do you now see how absurd your reason for deletion is now? It isn't a matter of site vanity, it is a matter of letting people know more about the groups that are so influential on Newgrounds and in internet pop culture. I have sent persons interested in what the groups are about to this page in discussion and they learned more about the groups and thus got a better understanding of Newgrounds and its history. I happen to believe that any article that gives information that wouldn't have been known otherwise and that properly expands knowlege of the topic to these unknowing individuals is worthy of keeping. On a side note, why should it matter if persons have made posts on a forum in regards to this matter. As long as the reasons that they mention in this discussion are not abusive, they have every right to speak their thoughts regarding the matter. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." So it is better to speak your mind on the matter and let one's own voice be heard rather than sit idly by and watch persons that appears to not understand the groups' importance in the flash community in general. But I digress and offer another idea, rather than a deletion, why not just separate the Clock Crew and Lock Legion from this Newgrounds Groups listing and allow separate listings since they are also well known of on other major flash sites such as SheezyArt, DeviantArt, and Flash Portal. WinchesterLock 24 May 2006
  • Guidelines Argument For Keeping - There are several separate claims for deleting the article, and I would like to address each according to the actual text on their corresponding guideline articles on Wikipedia. They are as follows: cableshaft 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
1. Website Vanity/Notability - Vanity Guidelines First of all this page HAS had vanity edits, and is in need of severe editing, though that does not mean it must be deleted. Also, "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article." The consensus for websites is under WP:WEB, which also addresses notability, so we should use this as our guideline.
2. Importance - Also, the same article on vanity states that "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." According to that link, "An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." The Clock Crew in particular, but the Lock Legion and Star Syndicate to a lesser extent, are well-known on Newgrounds, at the very least, a flash community website whose notability has already been established. As a result, the link states that "If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or 3. obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)" But as the link says, it still may fall under other deletion criteria.
3. Fancruft - Cruft can be removed, and according to Wikipedia:Fancruft - "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." So this cannot be the reason for deletion.
  • So back to notability. The guideline for this is on WP:WEB. According to it, "Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, ... through ... an online publisher." Additionally, this has a subscript that "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion...Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." They discount Newgrounds as trivial, and rightly so, as everything on that site is submitted by its users. However, there is, at the very least, some content made by the Clock Crew that is distributed by hundreds, if not thousands, of independent online sites outside of Newgrounds, the vast, vast majority of which do not accept submissions. Here are four examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Again, this is rather debateable, and depends on your definition of 'nontrivial'. According to the online dictionaries, at least, nontrivial means "Not trivial; of some importance" And the importance of these groups have been established in 2.* Also, I agree that any unsourced information in the article needs to be deleted. The article has bloated significantly from its inception, much of it by people unaware of this criteria. Again, that does not mean the entire article needs to be removed. cableshaft 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also, I made an honest attempt to clean up all the unsourced mess on the page. I'll work on it more later, I'm too tired now. cableshaft 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep - It amazes me that this is even an issue. These groups exist and create large numbers of animations every day. There have been two clock crew entries on the front page of newgrounds this week alone, the one that's currently there according to my research that has more than thirteen thousand views. How is it that anyone can refuse to acknowledge the existence of these groups? I can agree that using it to showcase the group's flash is not good policy but to use that as grounds for completely disacknowledging it is asinine. What you're suggesting is like saying that we shouldn't have a page on the Nazi party because some nazis would like to promote themselves. If there would be an unbiased chronicling of the clock crew perhaps with the help of some of its older/founding members to show the concept of the clock crew, the development of characters, etc. then that should be allowed and acceptable. Peter Deer 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If the members of the Clock Crew ever stage a coup, start a major international conflict, and are convicted in large numbers of crimes against humanity for attempting to commit genocide, then there might be some merit to your analogy. Until then, not so much. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You really have to hand it to that argument though - not everyone would be willing to compare themselves to Nazis in order to have their article kept on WP. Also, agreed with Bull-Steak that your argument is absurd. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Wickethewok 15:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - These groups have had combined memberships in the thousands. Google tests show that Clockcrew has 15,000 results alone. Surely the popularity should speak for itself. While it's not the most popular cult/fad/etc but combined at least they are definitly notable enough for an article. Celardore 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Why don't you guys just put this kind of stuff on your userpages? That way you can put almost anything you want there and it won't have to be in the main WP space or comply to WP standards. Wickethewok 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Just about anything can be put on your user page, and the fact that you can does not have any bearing on whether or not this page should be deleted. As an example, thousands of people have a healthy interest in the C++ programming language, and might want to put information on it on their user pages, does that mean that the C++ programming language article should be deleted? cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - Actually, that was an idea taken from your BBS, so I was just throwing it out there, too. Your analogy doesn't really work though, as C++ is not a thing the editors of that article created or are a member of. I think our current situation would be more like someone writing about a program they coded in C++. Wickethewok 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Question - So basically what you're saying is that if the creator of C++ decided to make an article about the language here then it would be deleted, but if a random guy made one with the exact same information it wouldn't? Nuril
  • Comment - This isn't an argument, but you might want to take into consideration the massive amount of vandalism this page has to endure daily. Before this page was created, the same people who vandalise this page currently used to vandalise the Newgrounds page with the same information. [5] . The Newgrounds page has been relatively vandal-free since this page was created. Deleting this page will only redirect their attention back to that article. Is it better to have a more visible page constantly hammered with this excessive information, or to have a sub-page for groups of tenuous notability that will get maybe 1/10th the traffic of the Newgrounds page would get? Again, this isn't an argument, just something to keep in mind. cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - Vandalism shouldn't be taken into account for AFD. Many of the most promiment articles of every subject are vandalized daily, but a solution is not to create other articles for those people to vandalize instead. But, yeah, I realize that that "isn't an argument" as you said. Anyways, I'm gonna stop hogging the AFD for awhile and wait for others to bring forth their opinions. Wickethewok 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I don't feel that individual groups are worthy of articles, I feel that the sum of these groups and the phenomenon of groups themselves are notable. In addition, the main Newgrounds article would be too long if this were merged back in, even if trimmed. I would also like to echo the vandalism comments of "Cableshaft" above. One motivation to creating this article was to contain the petty bikering. --Billpg 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Full discolsure. I, User:Billpg, created this article currently up for deletion. I have also initiated deletion of some of the pages for individual groups. I am the primary - but not only - author of the Criticism section of the Newgrounds article.
  • Delete or possibly smerge. Not inherently notable. -Sean Curtin 23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest a strong keep again. There are so many less notable groups included in the wikipedia with far less argument about their inclusion. I'd say keep, again, this group of groups is notable even if individualy they are not. Given a google test ClockCrew is notable at least... Then there are the Lock Legion and so on. I say KEEP. It's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Celardore 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - I don't really think the Google test is really applicable for proving notability. For example, "Penis Hat" pulls about 80% as many Google hits as "Clock Crew" does, but we still shouldn't have an article on it. Also, have we had anyone vote keep who isn't a member of one of these groups? Wickethewok 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • /me waves. --Billpg 01:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Celardore and Peter Dear aren't either, as far as I kno. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.173.248.197 (talk • contribs).
  • I would assume that Peter is a member, as this AFD is the first thing he's ever edited. Wickethewok 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I accept your point about the google test, but still I feel that collectively the groups are notable enough. Any Newgrounds member who's been around longer than five minutes knows who they are. Some members of these groups have produced some excellent movies, although a lot of the groups submissions are admittedly terrible. I just don't feel that this article needs to be deleted, granted it's not the most notable subject ever but they do have a small place in internet history. Celardore 18:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To 70.173.248.197 and other new members - Please do not vandalize mine or any other WP editors user pages (Special:Contributions/70.173.248.197). That is clearly not the way to get your article kept. Wickethewok 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry - Haven't used Wiki for anything but reading before, fucked the page up a bit by mistake. I tried to fix it though. ~Edit: Oh wait, userpages? I didn't do that. :P Nuril
  • Comment. I observe that some people have posted deletion comments to the article's talk page during this AfD process. I'll leave it up to the admins to decide what to do. --Billpg 13:01, 27 May 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_List_of_Newgrounds_groups_7d3f.html"