Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Demented Cartoon Movie (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 delete. Wickethewok 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Demented Cartoon Movie

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web). Vectro 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, all the usual suspects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note. This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 April 30. The result of the discussion was no consensus. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there appears to be no non-trivial third-party coverage of this Flash series by reliable sources, meaning it fails WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable animation. Characters and scenes from this work have appeared in other animations. (See the previous discussion for a partial list.) --Billpg 02:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How is it notable according to WP:WEB? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I supplied a list of justifications in the previous AfD. --Billpg 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You just listed a bunch of Flash cartoons that reference this series and Google hits. You didn't show if it was given nontrivial coverage by reliable sources; you didn't show if it won any notable, independent awards; and I would hardly say every site that hosts this Flash series would count as "distributing" the series. I can't see how this series at all meet the guidelines for notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • My opinion is that this work is worthy of a wikipedia article by itself and I backed it up by listing some take-offs that I know of. If the admin closing this nomination wants to disregard my opinion, so be it - this is not my website. --Billpg 20:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this Flash cartoon has had a large effect on the internet culture. Phrases such as "Zeeky Boogy Doog" and "Kamikaze Watermelon" have become known on their own. Of all the junk articles on Wikipedia, this isn't one of them. --Ridesim 07:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a citation showing that this cartoon has had the "large effect" that you claim? If so, please add it to the article and make a note here. Thanks, Vectro 06:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I listed some of the repeated use of catch-phrases and characters in the last deletion discussion. I'll add them to the article if it survives this round. --Billpg 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could repost them in here and get them on the article page. I'd like to see how it looks in the article. I think the list he had was a good indicator of the type of impact it has had.--Ridesim 07:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Citations
        • For example, although user-submitted, there are 15 definitions on the Urban Dictionary having to do with one of the film's catchphrases. ^[1]
        • "Zeeky Boogy Doog" has shown up in numerous YTMND pages (url removed by Vectro because of blacklisting)
        • Fooby, the Kamikaze Watermelon makes an appearance in this short, user (not me) created video. ^[2]
        • Or there's this Garry's Mod rebuild of the first Fooby appearance ^[3]
        • I'm sure a Google search could find more, but these tidbits from this cartoon have bled into other media forms. If you wanted, you could argue that YouTube is a film media. Either way, there's a clear impact on the internet world. If anyone would like to do hitcounts on Google, they can, but evidence such as this helps more.--Ridesim 07:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Ridesim. This movie is one of the more well-known Flash animations, and as he said, some of the phrases used in the movie are used elsewhere. Not to mention it's simply hilarious. --Xbolt 05:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Xbolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep In fact, furthermore, deleting this article would be like deleting the article on Monty Python, or the Three Stooges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.188.16.20 (talk • contribs).
  • No, it would not be, for the simple reason that both of those articles provide substantial citations to reliable, independent sources providing critical analysis and coverage of the works in question. Vectro 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I know that the opinion of a guest is moot, but this article is long enough, has at least 5 ciations & has mutiple links. PLUS it has a crazy fanbase and its cool!***** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.57.107.1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 October 2006.

• Comment What references? What citations? All the links given are either mirrors of the Flash series or (in the case of Urban Dictionary) are not reliable sources. Also, media that make references to a subject are not a guideline for notability; 20,000 Flash animations can make a reference to an obscure in-joke but unless the joke has coverage from an independent source, it's not notable. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you like to see the article improved with a section on the impact of the cartoon? It seems to me that there is none right now, but we have some information for starting a section on it. --Ridesim 03:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No. Let me repeat myself, "impact" is not a criteria for notability. Read the notability guidelines for web content to understand what constitues notability on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In that case, the article complies with the notability standards. Chriterion 3 indicates: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The subject gained notability after being published on Albinoblacksheep.com, a "well known" website whose publishings are made by webmaster, rather than by simple user publishing. The creator (Brian Kendall) does not own or operate said website. This qualifies the article as compliant and should be decided as keep due to Albinoblacksheep's notability as an "online publisher." --Ridesim 07:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and swift Burn it with fiar. I've seen it before and it's funny but it fails every notability test, is completely unverifiable and looks a lot like original research. Axem Titanium 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Also, please note this tag from the article's discussion page:

This article is within the scope of the Web Animation WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Web Animation. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

--Ridesim 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

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.