Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retarded Animal Babies

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 per WP:WEB. Those arguing for keeping the article do not bring up any sources verifying notability. --Coredesat 04:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retarded Animal Babies

Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEB. Doesn't seem any more notable than any other Newgrounds cartoon from the given information. Delete per lack of independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is one of the most worked out internet cartoons, it's even sold on DVD, on top of that the article is well written. If we have an article of Xombie, why delete this one? Supreme_Bananas

Keep This is a unique cartoon that deserves an article about it. To my knowlege Happy Tree Friends is the only similar cartoon making Retarded Animal Babies quite diffrent from most other newgrounds cartoons. Also Retarded animal Babies has 16 episodes which is more than can be said for many internet cartoons. --Dr.-B 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I actually came here from the Weird Al article. A very big article for the topic, but certainly keepworthy. toresbe 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Newgroundscruft. Danny Lilithborne 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no verifiable sources to prove that it satisfies WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is well written, and it sounds like a fine cartoon, but there appears to be no well founded assertion of notability. Find where it is discussed in mainstream news media, or print magazines or papers, or whre it has won significant awards, and cite that to validate why it should have a Wikipedia article.Edison 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison. Consequentially 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is much more significant than just the run of the mill flash cartoon. Not only does it have a DVD release, it is also featured on G4 Television as well. It's right up there with Happy Tree Friends, and if that has an article, then this should, too.Helltopay27 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a long running internet cartoon that's currently on it's 17th episode. It's no run-of-the-mill cartoon. If we're going to allow any internet-related things on Wikipedia then this ought to be one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.204 (talk • contribs).

Comment. Being unique isn't a criterion for inclusion. I'm unique -- there's only one of me in the whole wide world -- but I haven't done anything worth writing about, and no notable third-party publication has published an article or review about me. The same can be said for Retarded Animal Babies. In the absenece of verifiable information that establishes notability, this article should not be included. The fact that it's lasted sixteen episodes is a testament to the creator's willpower, not its notability. Consequentially 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Edison unless we can establish notability. Heimstern Läufer 14:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Edison. Is there another wiki that would want this ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's one of the most notable flash cartoons on the internet --Dieboybun 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not just a notable Flash cartoon but a notable long-running series of Flash cartoons that have branched out into DVD sales and television appearances (on G4) RedSox1981 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not one's subjective feeling that the subject is important. For a good essay about WP:N, see User:Uncle G/On notability. Find a way to objectively document the notability. Edison 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let me add to what Edison, et al. have already said and point out that the references to the DVD in the article have an advertisment-esque feel to them. The Literate Engineer 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This really helped me understand the series a lot better. Keep: This article gives good discriptions about the DVD selling Flash series and is way better than some articles that are one sentence long.

Keep: RABS rock and this article shouldn't need to cite its sources. They are all newgrounds.com/the DVD Keep why delete it? It is an accurate article about an important internet cartoon. By its very nature you are unlikely to find any print references to it

• Delete Notability has not been established, and I for one, hadn't heard of them until this AFD. If they gain notability then it can be re-created, but for now, delete. SunStar Net 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep! Why delete it? It describes the antics and goings-on of a group of animals. It's an animation- so it's not for kids. The article on wikipedia isn't rated R, just because the toon might be. Wikipedia is a source of information, and that's exactly what this is doing- informing everyone who cares to listen about RAB and it's contents- that doesn't mean they're going to go off and show it to a bunch of kids.

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.