Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YAAFM

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 - the arguments of the 2 non-anon, non-first-contribution 'keep' voters are tenuous, at best, and the arguments to delete are way more convincing. Proto||type 13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YAAFM

A non-notable cartoon on a non-notable website. Most of the google hits on this phrase are because it's a rather common phrase on the internet. Prod was removed without comment. Aplomado - UTC 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Weak keep. I've seen the cartoons, and while it may not be as big an internet meme as, say, Jibjab was back 'round Election time, it does seem to have a strong following, and the creators got enough of a response to two of their cartoons (Michael Moore and Scientology) to where they felt justified placing essays on their site to defend the decision to lambaste them. Pat Payne 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Flash cartoons. Especially those where the article presents no evidence of notability (like this one). What marks this out form the several gazillion other Flash cartoons out there? It don't say. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete pending better evidence of notability. From the article: "The series stars Reginald, a purple horned demon who spews insults and swearwords in a sophisticated fashion." That's an oxymoron, sorry, pal. Getting criticized for some bits of parody, and writing defenses of the efforts, is not enough to meet WP inclusion standards. Were the criticisms widely reported in the sort of media which uses editors, fact-checkers, and so forth? Barno 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Good point. I had just assumed that the fact that they had to go through the trouble of justifying their stances in those two instances meant that there was more buzz on the net over it. But I haven't seen anything in too many news sites about it (and none on GoogleNews), so while I'm still for keeping it, it's now a Weak Keep. I enjoy the site but perhaps it's not as notable as it could be. Also, yep. I don't know of anyone (with the exception of Darren McGavin in A Christmas Story who can swear in a sophisticated way. :) Pat Payne 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Buy an ad. Somewhere else. NTK 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable series. --Billpg 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn like 99,9% of all Flash cartoons. Sandstein 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Funny flash movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.55.176.66 (talk • contribs) on April 19, 2006.

User 86.55.176.66 has made less than 10 contributions to Wikipedia. Aplomado - UTC 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems drastic to delete an article such as this, which does get hits, when there are so many other articles that do not. 82.5.173.40 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is user 82.5.173.40's 2nd contribution to Wikipedia. Aplomado - UTC 22:41, 20 April 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.