Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 20 Cent Quest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 20 Cent Quest

Non-notable Flash cartoon, and from the level of personal details, probably self-promotion (the anon contributor's sole contribution). 8 displayed hits for "20 Cent Quest". It apparently can't be viewed anywhere (a newer cartoon is on the school's website), so this ends up being mostly just an ad for some kid's Geocities website. Niteowlneils 03:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Eclipsed 04:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Won two national awards for student animation in 2003. This is notable--the award presentation was a very prestigious affair at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as TS. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though the page doesn't mention it's only claim to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsoo (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 July 2005
    • Comment. Oh even the first version mentioned the two ATOM awards, though this was buried in the text at the time. Since then I added references to the awards in the opening paragraph. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable student animation. Only 6 Google hits. The ATOM Award itself might be notable. If someone writes that article, this can be mentioned briefly in the list of winners. jni 13:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I can see this being of interest, although it's borderline notable. --Scimitar parley 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: User:Jni is right: it can be mentioned in the list of winners, after an article on the award exists. This article for its own sake is not needed, as the animation's low Google hit count shows that, at least at this point, it has not proven very influential, successful, or unusual. We don't assess the value of the comic; we report on things the rest of the world has assessed for us. Geogre 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Well the point is that the world has assessed something for us. The animation won two prizes in a prestigious national competition. That it didn't go on to sweep the internet is immaterial. To set internet success as a criterion is like moving the goalposts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, until we get an ATOM Award article, then merge. -Splash 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the awards are not "a prestigious national competition". ATOM is an acronym for "Australian Teachers of Media", and usually less than 1000 people enter. The very grand sounding "Australian Centre for the Moving Image" also functions as a hothouse for experimental and contemporary art. Thus while ACMI does host some notable works, merely being given an award inside it does not make you notable. Considering the very high internet profile that works of this type have, the fact that it didn't "sweep the internet" is material. If and when these young men make some larger mark, this can go into their article under "First Steps". Until then (despite it being someone's pet project) it is not encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That is very misleading. While it is organised by Australian Teachers of Media and has a strong focus on education, ATOM awards are also awarded to, and are prized by, the Australian independent media [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. I am not sure what "Australian Centre for the Moving Image" also functions as a hothouse for experimental and contemporary art is supposed to mean, but perhaps it is an attempt to argue that experimental and contemporary art lack notability and by extension an organisation holding its awards ceremony here is in some way a lesser one for that. You say that it's significant that a work by two twelve-year olds didn't "sweep the internet." Were this the case then there would be no way of judging the excellence of the work of younger people, which cannot possibly compete against the work of more experienced, more capable adults. This is precisely the kind of problem that awards such as the ATOMs exist to remedy. The same panel that judges the general documentary categories also judges the K-8 categories. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Irritated Comment Yes, misleading indeed. Misleading to juxtapose the location of the award (the "very prestigious affair at [ACMI]") with the prominence of the award itself. Misleading to provide a list of links that fails to demonstrate the prominence of the award. Misleading to spin a statement of fact into a slag of contemprary art in an attempt to discredit. I am very disappointed.
      brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm totally mystified. I don't understand your response but you're clearly yupset. I apologise for this, it was inadvertent.
        1. I do happen to believe that the prestige of an award-giving ceremony is good evidence of the prominence of the award--your opinion may differ on that but this doesn't mean people who do not share your opinion are intentionally misleading anyone.
        2. I said I didn't know why you mentioned that ACMI promoted contemporary and experimental art, and I meant it. What is the relevance of this? I hazarded a guess and got it wrong and seem to have offended you--my apologies for this.
        3. The list of links that I gave illustrate precisely what I said, no more and no less, that: "While it is organised by Australian Teachers of Media and has a strong focus on education, ATOM awards are also awarded to, and are prized by, the Australian independent media". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Saying, "You're clearly upset" has the connotation that I am overly emotional or mentally disturbed. I have respect for "people who do not share [my] opinion". Please:
        1. Demonstrate that the presentation was a very prestigious affair.
        2. Demonstrate that this is a prestigious national competition.
        3. Demonstrate that the award is prized by the Australian independent media.
Because these are the claims. To date the facts presented are:
  1. That the awards this year were presented at ACMI.
  2. That this is a national competition.
  3. That people who win or are nominated note it on their websites.
Please see: Google:prestigious "ATOM awards".
Nearly all these links are by people who have won the award. I examined every link in the first four pages and found exactly one that was from an unbiased party.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
(This comment has been changed from it's more aggresive original version. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep, non-notability not established. Furthermore, nominator's assumptions are based in original research. —RaD Man (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this in not encyclipedic.--nixie 01:49, 3 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.