Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddsworld (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   no consensus. If we were going strictly by numbers this would obviously be a keeper, but some of the keep arguments are quite weak and everyone seems to agree the article needs further improvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Eddsworld
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Notability has not been established for this YouTube series of animated cartoons per WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Distributed through YouTube and redistributed on various sites, including Newsgrounds, MySpace, and various blogs. Created and deleted ten different times through speedy deletion, as well as AFD. While it appears sourcing is there, reliability and independence is lacking.  Cind. amuse  13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Delete  - this is purely promotional - on closer examination this is not promotional but i cannot find sources for Eddsworld. surprised it has made it this far - could have died at G11 - will list the sources with evaluation if necessary. Mark  Dask  17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Just a note that I have copied a comment by the creator of this article, left on the talk page of the original discussion, to the talk page of this one. -- Kateshortforbob talk  22:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have tried my best to address the issues raised. I believe I have removed most unreliable sources and have added multiple reliable sources. This includes the distributions and collaberations with BBC, the Guardian, TVE, and the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference and the reliable references that support the work done with these organizations. Also, sources to prove its YouTube popularity. With these improvements, this article does (and of this I am most certain) meet the 3rd Criteria of Web Notability, thus allowing it to stay. I will admit it still needs improvement, but just because sources are minimal and very difficult to find, does not mean it should be deleted. I really think it would be best to allow the article to stay, giving it the opportunity to further improve. Please reconsider your previous vote, as again, I have found sources that prove its notability. (Thank-you for reading. Please Reconsider.) Zach Winkler (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Comment. Hi Zach! While I appreciate your passion about the subject and the article, it falls short of the requirements for inclusion. Articles require support through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Consider the current references.
 * video repositories:
 * http://www.cakebomb.co.uk/ is a repository of Eddsworld YouTube videos. As the originator of Eddsworld, this source is not independent of the subject. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch the video. Not significant.
 * http://wn.com/tveinspiringchange?upload_time=all_time&orderby=relevance is a video repository. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch the YouTube video. Not significant.
 * video presented through online newspaper blog:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/clips/p0087j80/mitchell_webb_almeratron/ is a blog presented through an online newspaper that put a video on their site. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch a video. Not significant.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/05/one-minute-to-save-the-world?INTCMP=SRCH is a blog with some videos on the site. None identified as Eddsworld. Blog only briefly mentions Eddsworld and does not verify the article content cited.
 * site stats:
 * http://vidstatsx.com/eddsworld/videos and http://vidstatsx.com/v/Eddsworld are stats pages set up by Ed Gould (Eddsworld) to present website viewer statistics. Neither independent or significant to an encyclopedic article.
 * personal blogs:
 * http://www.beyond-ability.com/charity/super-fun-charity-raffle is a personal blog that put a video on their site. A source that offers nothing more than an opportunity to watch the video. Neither reliable or significant.
 * http://johnwelsh.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/guest-post-how-cult-youtube-directors-encourage-a-young-demographic-to-support-climate-change/ is a personal blog that put a video on their site. A source that offers little more than an opportunity to watch a video. Neither reliable or significant.
 * lulu.com
 * Gould, Edd (02/27/2011). Toaster Brains. Lulu. ISBN N/A.: A self-publishing promotional site. The source is a shopping cart to either download or purchase a cartoon book. Neither independent or significant.
 * press release:
 * www.tve.org/tests/documents/A%20Million%20Views%20on%20Copenhagen%20Press%20Release.doc is a Word document press release, which is neither independent or reliable.
 * Hope this helps provide some insight,  Cind. amuse  08:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the fact that the BBC features Eddsworld should constitute notability - the fact that Eddsworld is a purely online phenomenon should not exclude it, in notability terms, from inclusion, therefore keep.   Mark   Dask  06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This really doesn't support notability for Eddsworld. If you can provide a rationale that is supported by Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, it would be beneficial to the process. The BBC website has a comedy blog that serves as a repository of comedic videos from around the web. They placed a video on their blog in order to highlight BBC's programme entitled "That Mitchell and Webb Look". This does not equate to the BBC featuring Eddsworld in any capacity. Outside of merely watching a video, nothing more is offered other than including Ed Gould on a list of individuals as animator. The video on the BBC blog does not establish notability according to WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  08:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe Mark may be referencing to the actual BBC News segment that featured (and was specifically about) "Eddsworld" and their YouTube popularity and involvement in the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference. I am in the process of getting a direct reference from the BBC archives of this news segment. I believe this may define any notability "Eddsworld" has (as this Climate Conference was a very important, international affair, and any involvement "Eddsworld" had in it (created a video featured in the opening ceremony) would prove notability). I do not know how long it will take for the man I spoke with to return any resources or information; I wish I had more time. Can a "Speedy Deletion" be changed to a more long-term deletion process? Is that in our control? I will try to fix-up the article some more, and if I can get the information in time, I will add this vital reference. Also, thank-you Cindamuse for your constructive criticism, I am becoming a better Wikipedian every day! Thank-you for reading. Zach Winkler (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the existence of this BBC report on Eddsworld can be found, that would be a good jump towards notability. Having checked out Eddworld's popularity on YouTube, I wouldn't be surprised to found it had received coverage like this, I just have had trouble finding it myself.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I deleted some of those unreliable references (I know this does not help in notability) and another user added an info-box. I am still awaiting the proper information in reference to that BBC news broadcast (I have called more individuals for assistance in reference information). This article is improving greatly and much faster then I thought it ever would. Eddsworld does meet the notability requirements (via the news broadcast and work with the conference I previously explained), but because I do not have the proper information to reference to, I will not discuss that any more. The subject is obviously very popular, and just because sources are difficult to find does not take away from that, but I understand all of your great points. I know this article is poorly sourced and still needs improvement, but I also believe it meets the minimal requirements. Deletion should not occur, but proper notifications should be attached to the article to indicate its issues. Even so, I would also like to thank all of you that helped and put so much interest into this project. It has improved this article (some-what) and improved my skills as a Wikipedian. If this article is deleted I will continue to find sources and may contact you guys on your opinion about my sources' reliability and such. Thank-you for the experience. Zach Winkler (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources. Zach, there is no speedy tag on the article, only the regular deletion tag--usually such AfD discussions run for a week. If it should get deleted (and if so, it will be without prejudice against recreation, no doubt), you can always ask the deleting administrator to "userfy" it, that is, to put it in your own user space for you to work on. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well now I feel stupid, thank-you for telling me it was not taged for Speedy Deletion (I could have sworn it was). Thank-you for the comment too, I am still going to try to get that reference though. Thank-you. Zach Winkler (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel stupid: you're getting your feet wet (this stuff can be complex), and you sound like a team player. Wikipedia can use team players. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Zach, if the article is deleted, don't discourage thinking that your work is lost. We can "userfy" the article, which is Wikipedia's fancy way of saying that we can move the article to another page of your account, where you can have access to it and continue editing and improving it. When the other sources come in, we'll just have someone quickly review it and if it's a go, we can move it to the mainspace again. Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime if you have questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep -This article meets the notability requirements. The article Jonti Picking is up with worse sourcing than this article has. There are biography articles up with no sources too. I'm not justifying this article's lack of sources, just making a point. I think it needs Notability and Refimprove boxes added though. It still needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkus M (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign. Kirkus M (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC))

Comment - Just wanted to notify. I added a reference to the BBC video I was previously typing about. I do not think I entered in all "necessary" data, but I entered what I could. I am awaiting further information from Crispin Rolfe (The BBC "presenter" who did the news-segment). Zach Winkler (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article meets notability. simple as that.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2011 (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.