Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Ironicly the strongest argument to delete was made by someone wanting to keep it... ---J.S (T/C) 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series

Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Original research synthesis about a Yu-Gi-Oh! parody fan series on YouTube. Now, as a disclaimer, I think it's hilarious, but I'm afraid it doesn't meet the Web content notability guidelines. Specifically:

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation, as far as I know.
  • The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. YouTube would fall under the "trivial" hosts clause, as in "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial," as anyone can upload videos to the site.

Additionally, the article in is current form is an unencyclopedic analytical guide to the series based upon personal observation, not information published in reliable sources. --Slowking Man 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Articles about this subject have already been to AfD twice before, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series (although it appears those AfD debates ran concurrently). Nevertheless, from glancing at the deleted revisions, this article appears to be significantly different, so I feel that continuing this AfD may be useful (CSD G4 states, "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject."). --Slowking Man 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time someone has wanted to delete an article I have written under rights of notability so you'll forgive me if I sound...unhappy. While I will admit when i first began the article most of the infomation provided on The Abridged Series was from my own personal interpretation (It has since been edited several times) It is simply because I am not Little Kuriboh, and therefore can not give use reliable sources, short of asking Kuriboh himself (Something I have been trying to do, but have been unable to due his busy lifestyle). Another thing to point out is not every article subject on Wikipedia has been the subject of published works, nor has every article subject won a notable independent award. As to the host issue, Youtube is hardly a trivial host. Although, yes, anyone can upload onto the site (I myself own an account there) some of the contributors are well known companies such as NBS and CBS just to name a couple. I would also like to point out that episodes 1-14 were recently realeased onto Bittorrent (As close as it will ever get to a DVD release) thus taking it away from hosts all together. I am aware that the article doesn't read like other pages, but I am trying my hardest to change it. Also, unless the article is deleted, I am trying to improve it as best I can (Episode guide, etc) Finally, People LIKE this page. The articles talk page only has one person wanting to delete it (For it's notability) I have worked hard on it, and am pleased that people have taken an interest in updating it. in other words, I don't think you should delete this page. Dearing 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, asking Kuriboh for information would still conflict with WP:OR as well. Neier 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:NOR, WP:WEB. Unfortunately, neither the number of people who (allegedly) like an article nor how much work the creator put into it are factors in whether it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. RGTraynor 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately, as much as I like this series, there's no way to keep it from failing policies all across the board. It's actually been deleted in two previous AfD's and I was nervous about the present article. I wish I could vote Keep, but it's not possible. Danny Lilithborne 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a notable online series, and there are much more obscure things on wikipedia. I also fail to see this agenda against YouTube videos.J'onn J'onzz 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is it notable? Has it won any major award? Has it been re-broadcast on another media? Has it been subject of mutliple non-trivial sources? If not, it fails to meet Wikipedia web content inclusion guidelines. --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepVeemonjosh 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a debate, not a vote. Please provide reasoning for keeping this article. i.e. Add sources to the article that provide information that in someway meets the standards at Wikipedia's web inclusion guidelines --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shouns 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Danny Lilithborne above. Neier 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Depending on our criteria for honours it (the original episode) may have 3. However those honours that it has earned are Youtube's internal ranking honours, so if we intend to start admitting them as criteria for notability we would need a decent discussion at WP:WEB on where to draw the line at, and they would probably be best put into briefly summarized lists someplace rather than their own articles. That discussion seems to have not taken place, so delete for now. --tjstrf talk 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per J'onn J'onzz. Birdboy2000 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is it notable? J'onn didn't really provide a reason. --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "People like it" is not a reason to keep. The article provides no sources on how it meets Wikipedia's web inclusion guidelines. Has it won a major award? Has it been re-broadcast on another medium? Have there been multiple nontrivial mentions of it in any published work? I can't find any. --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.-DESU 11:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to be noteworthy. I don't think it has escaped YouTube.--Cloak' 14:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Failing to have the article would be a serious deficiency on Wikipedia's part - Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people watch this. 140.247.146.103 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to delete this article, I will not stop you (I know other people simply keep putting old pages back up after being deleted.) However, I would like to say two things. The first is that I will be keeping a copy of this page in case THe Abridged Series reaches the specifications needed to to be classed as a wikipedia article. the second thing is that after reading the articles talk page, I discovered several people found the article to be useful (Note i said useful, not "They liked it".) Cactus Bob said and i quote "I personally searched for this topic myself. I believe that this page is a valuable resource for finding references that would be different to research on one's own", while MoChan said "I actually found out about this series in the first place thanks to this article". I always thought Wikipedia was here to inform people, that was the only reason I began this article. I think that the series is notable enough to get a page here, even though it's hasn't won any awards or been featured in publications, but judging from this page, many of you don't think the same. I can understand that. We all have to follow the rules, otherwise we'd have chaos. Dearing 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite accurate; Wikipedia's purpose is to be an online encyclopedia, not to "inform people," a vague aspiration under which damn near anything could be justified. That being said, you saving a copy of the article in the event the guidelines change or the subject meets those guidelines just makes good sense. RGTraynor 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia-A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics." extract taken from Wiktionary's article on Encylopedia. Now to me, that just says "A Reference book used to tell people about all kinds of stuff," Which is what I use Encylopedias for, to look up info on things I want to know about. I couldn't find a page on The Abridged Series, so I wrote one in the hopes I could tell other people about it, and they'd find it useful. and for what it's worth, they did. Dearing 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" is not "all-inclusive." Again, you're using a fallicious defence: It's useful so we should keep it. We could data dump the New York City telephone directory into Wikipedia and some people would find it useful. Usefullness is a subjective argument. The page has to pass the objective guidelines for content inclusion. --Kunzite 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Comprehensive-Broadly or completely covering," so yes, essentually it IS all-inclusive. The most recent watched episode of THe Abridged series as of the date of this message was 257,526. three of it's episodes currently hold positions in You tube's top rated comedy section. It's featured on thousands of dirrerent forums. If this is notible, then I don't know what is.Dearing 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Not only is the page being worked on constantly, the fact that many other Youtube video series that are not as popular, or have even less information on them, exist on Wikipedia surely would mean that they should be up for deletion before this article? KatsuyaJounouchi 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page shows a lot of jokes people may have missed, and certain quotations.

It also adds a bit about characters behaviors, comparing them to their original behavior, in the original series. There is really no harm done with this article, it's well-built, and actually HELPS, by showing you certain quotations and their origin. N 14:32, 19 December 2006 [UTC]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.66.234.124 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep Now, I think that Wikipedia is the best thing to happen to the world in decades, but for the Wikipedia community to think that this article should be deleted is simply ignorant and dispicable. The article is unbiased and (with the exception of: no third-party publications, no notable awards, and no mainstream distribution) encyclopedic. Perhaps it does qualify as "original research," but as the writer of this article argued earlier, when there are no available primary sources, you are restricted to origial research. And seriously: if there ever are any "primary source" documents that discuss Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series, they will be published on the Internet, just the same as this article should be. That's just the way of modern publication. So what draws the line between this article and a "primary source" article hosted somewhere "non-trivial"? And this is where the ignorance comes in: There HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial. But again, where do you draw the line? Compare the entire Internet-savvy population of the world with the hundreds-of-thousands of viewers watching this series. The tens-of-thousands of them who found out about the series by reading about it on third-party Internet sites. I think it's pretty clear which side of your ambiguous line this article should fall on. And in regard to the "notable awards" argument, I don't know how many awards you would consider notable that are given out to online cartoon parody dubs. Especially considering that the series has only barely been around for 5 months. Do you take into consideration the fact that it may be up for nomination for any of these "notable" awards? I think as a rule of thumb it would be reasonable to leave the article up until the series has been around for a year, to see if it gets any of these awards (of course, with a disclaimer that states that many scholars argue it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia, but it may be in consideration for gaining a quality that would deem it notable). And finally, the distribution issue. I don't know the laws on parody very well, but I'm sure there's someone in the Wikipedia community that can give some insight into this. All I suggest is that it's rather unlikely that something with content as legally questionable as parody would not easily be redistributed outside of open-source free-content-sharing communities like Youtube. Someone earlier in this AfD also mentioned the release of episodes 1-14 to Bittorrent, which sounds to me like it fits the bill of "well known and independent of the creators," although it too would fall under your trivial clause, wouldn't it? But there's the ambiguity again. In short, I think that this article's deletion will prove that Wikipedia's one great flaw is that it cannot understand how to alter the guidelines of "what is encyclopedic" to reflect the changes that the Internet has caused. You can take the paper out of an encyclopedia and put it online, but that doesn't mean you've got an online encyclopedia, you just have an encyclopedia that is online.DoomTree87 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment

Perhaps it does qualify as "original research," but as the writer of this article argued earlier, when there are no available primary sources, you are restricted to origial research.

A primary source is usually created by the person or persons being studied. In this case, that would LittleKuriboh's videos, so yes, you do have primary sources, primary that are available for verification purposes to anyone who can get to the Internet—provided that YouTube isn't doing maintenance.

here HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial.

Unless they're just fansites, then why don't you use them in the actual article? By the way, we aren't saying that "Internet = trivial". Go read WP:WEB. To see what sort of sourcing we expect of people who became famous on YouTube, see Category:YouTube and especially lonelygirl15.

So what draws the line between this article and a "primary source" article hosted somewhere "non-trivial"?

The most important difference is that a primary source article, or even a secondary or tertiary source article hosted anywhere makes a far better source for this particular article than does this particular article. Also, having an article on Wikipedia just means that someone wrote an article about you on Wikipedia. It means absolutely nothing in the notability department. I have literally seen people stick obituaries on Wikipedia. For obvious reasons, those have been long since deleted, but you can see articles about similarly unnotable people and things here.

The tens-of-thousands of them who found out about the series by reading about it on third-party Internet sites.

How on earth do you know this?

Someone earlier in this AfD also mentioned the release of episodes 1-14 to Bittorrent, which sounds to me like it fits the bill of "well known and independent of the creators," although it too would fall under your trivial clause, wouldn't it?

That's rather amusing, given that I recall hearing LittleKuriboh himself say that he was releasing them in Torrent form on his YouTube profile, which now says something else. That said, I did find this on his LiveJournal:

So yeah... 'm very sorry. Hopefully I can figure out this whole torrent thing, so's at least people can download the series to their hard-drives. That'd be neat, huh?

And then there's this:

Torrential Tribute Can anybody who knows about torrents check this out and see if it works? Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series Torrent If it doesn't, then can ya tell me what I'm doin' wrong? *blush*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmky87 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Comment Please be civil when debating articles for deletion. Calling this deletion "ignorant and despicable" is not warranted. Anyway, you said that this article is encyclopedic "…With the exception of: no third-party publications, no notable awards, and no mainstream distribution…" How is it then encyclopedic? It's got no reliable independent sources and it's got no claim to notability. You say: "There HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial" What are they? If they exist, please present them as evidence in this article, otherwise this is an empty declaration. How exactly is a series being released on bittorrent an indication of notability? Bittorrent is an open-sorce file sharing protocol that anyone with a pc, internet connection, and a bit of knowledge can use to share files. It's not an indication of notability.
You can see an example list of acceptable awards at the bottom of WP:WEB. If there are similar notable and independent awards that are given for this category of web items, then they can be considered as well. (Remember this guideline if for all web content: blogs, website, webcomics, online videos, etc. There are recognized awards in many of those categories, but not in all.) If the subject of the article has been nominated for multiple awards then it may be considered notable. An article need not be "[left] up until the series has been around for a year". If it became notable, then it can be easily re-created. The re-distribution clause is mainly meant for blog content that is republished in main-stream media. It can also apply to online videos that are re-show on other media. An online video example of this is Canon Rock (song). The video lead to major discussion on CNN, NPR, New York Times, etc…
As for the Wikipedia is not paper argument. Wikipedia does cover a lot of articles that would not be covered in a traditional paper encyclopedia. (Canon Rock (song) is an example.) We've taken the paper out of the encyclopedia. What you're asking is to take the encyclopedia out of encyclopedia. --Kunzite 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This series is a very popular section on YouTube. Not only that, but it also shows many old jokes from the series that old fans may have forgotten. It deserves to stay. Red Director 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Wikipedia doesn't exist to explain inside jokes for YouTube videos. Has it gotten any third party sources? Has it won any major awards? You can't just say it's popular. You have the burden to show evidence that it meets objective web inclusion criteria --Kunzite 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This series has been steadily gaining fans and been getting popular by the day. I personally found this article to be helpful and very handy for the information about the series. It's been mentioned on many places besides YouTube, regardless of what Cloak thinks. If you take an article on something this popular off, might as well take every freaking thing in the internet meme section off as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.176.123 (talk • contribs).
Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Helpfullness is not a criteria for keeping. I could dump the Moosejaw Canada phone directory into Wikipedia and people would find it helpful, but it's not encyclopedic. If topics in the "meme section" aren't sourced, then feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. --Kunzite 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please, please, PLEASE tell me that those "other websites" aren't just messageboards. PLEASE. Not only can messageboard posts be deleted whether you like it or not, and the board in question move to another URL or disappear completely, but those forum posts are usually nothing more than links or commentary on the videos in question and may not be useful for sourcing anything in this article. In any case, it isn't just the quality of publication that matters, but also the non-triviality of mention. A passing mention in a tiny article in major publication doesn't count, either.--Rmky87 21:48, 20 December 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.