Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toon Zone (3rd 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   delete. While a number of new sources were provided, the broad consensus seems to be that none provide the substantial coverage required by WP:N, and generally all that has been demonstrated is a variety of small mentions. ~ mazca  talk 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Toon Zone
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. This article was deleted through WP:Articles for deletion/Toon Zone (2nd nomination) last year, and Morningpulse rewrote it recently in its current form. Backslash Forwardslash speedily deleted it under G4 (re-creation of deleted content), and Morningpulse contested (see User talk:Backslash Forwardslash), saying that he believes the article is substantially different from the deleted version and should go to AfD. Listing here for discussion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, copy-pasting my rationale from User talk:Backslash Forwardslash:"Just my unsolicited two cents: from what I can tell, the article has more references than the original, but doesn't address the problems raised in the original AfD, and so while it's superficially different than the original it still has the same problem.... most of the references appear to be nothing more than picking any article or website that happens to mention ToonZone at all, and don't really demonstrate real notability" r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of references towards it in third party media sources. The quote from Atlantic magazine should be enough.  Some places call it ToonZone, instead of Toon Zone though.  The official site says it has a space in it.   D r e a m Focus  15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at those references? They aren't about ToonZone, most of them are just a passing mention or, even less, just saying "this story appeared in ToonZone". Out of the ones I looked at, the engaget, slashdot, io9, shanghaiist, IGN, and gateworld (archived, the current url is dead) sites can all be so described. That's the entire right-hand column of the reflist (excluding offline sources, which I doubt are any better), and I didn't even look at the left. This is a textbook example of flooding an article with every random ref you can find just to avoid deletion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many notable people in the animation industry make reference towards it. Two published books, including one from the Webster dictionary company, mention it as notable.  I'm going to add those references now.   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those Webster books are reprinted content from Wikipedia. --Morning (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What? How do they decide what to include and what not to?  It can't just be random, and they certainly can't include everything.  Do they have a means to determine what is notable and what isn't?  And was the article there, with that information, at the time of the printing?   D r e a m Focus  16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's been around in some way or another since 2005 (although it was deleted for the past year). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and salt. It's a great website, but there are absolutely no non-trivial mentions. Every reference cited only uses Toon Zone as a source and doesn't give a non-trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources seem sufficient to show notability. This was not at all the case in the version previously deleted, which had no sources at all. That deletion was correct; this one is not. DGG (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mere verification of existence by trivial mentions is not reason for inclusion. For a topic to be notable, it must have significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Two thirds of the references are examples of the claim that this website has been mentioned in passing by a bunch of things. Not references which make this claim, but examples of the claim. The references that actually make claims about this website are not substantially about the website, and are indeed mentioning it only in passing. It's fashionable to ignore the "significantl" in "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but to my knowledge it's still there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a clear-cut case. The presence of many references is irrelevant if they do not provide significant in-depth coverage of the topic.  That is the case here with the many trivial and oblique mentions but no real substance. Drawn Some (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep verifiable sources, check, notability check. trivial sources?  perhaps some, but then as notability isn't transferred neither is triviality.--Buridan (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how does trivial sources on the internet not translate to trivial sources in the article? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because references and article are horrible. If nobody else can be bothered to write an article about this, then we shouldn't either. Blackbirdz (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I can't really trace down any of those sources and soom look fairly trivial. But there is a strong case for notability here and, AGF, I will assume a few of them are detailed enough. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please state what the strong case for notability is? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article establishes that Toon Zone is used as a source for statistics and similar things by those involved in the area. That so many RS indicate that they use Toon Zone as a source, that implies notability.  Plus LOTs of fairly trivial coverage builds up toward meeting WP:N IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can accept the error I made in speedy deleting the article, but I may as well chip in. Deletion would appear to be the correct decision; the website has not passed the notability criterion of non-trivial coverage. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} [[13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are all fake, seemingly plucked at random so the article seems more relavent than it actually is. I work at Toon Zone and ALL of these references are news to the staff, citing books that have no reason to reference an animation website.--HellCat86 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * THIS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not this. There's a big difference between "this is trivial coverage" and "these are fake". TenPoundHammer, you don't accuse an editor of lying just because he wrote one crappy article. —Morning (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe what he meant by "fake" was that the references are not really sources supporting the intended claim, but just pages that happen to contain the words "Toon Zone". It was not an accusation of intentional lying (as far as I can tell). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Again, it's a good site (my site is hosted there and been cited by animation history writers like Jerry Beck, Michelle Klein-Hass, and Amid Amidi and animation producers like Tad Stones and Fred Seibert, so I'm a little biased), but this article is largely used to insult the reputation of the site (highlighted by that "sort of common ground where those without lives can dwell on and dissect in detail the doings of others" quote and the countless links unconnected to the site), especially when the quote can be referred to any pop culture website. That said, the article had been deleted in the past largely because it attracts former members who had been banned from the site's forums to libel Toon Zone while hiding behind false names and IP numbers. Now, while I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions (freedom of speech is a glorious thing), Wikipedia isn't exactly the right place to do so. Nemalki (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a negative quote because that's all I could find. If you have better sources, get rid of that terrible quote and add the good sources instead. —Morning (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But here's the thing. Why does the inclusion of THAT particular quote need to be prominent in the article? There are even more negative quotes about bigger sites than Toon Zone, and they're rarely present here, so why is that quote in this one? I mean, The Art Institute of Philadelphia calls Toon Zone home to "some of the best animation sites on the internet."  Also, many industry insiders have praised Toon Zone during its fifth anniversary . Many, many positive quotes, and yet you chose to post a negative one instead.Nemalki (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be anything! It's not my article. You're free to add and remove whatever you want. I haven't been a member of Toon Zone for like six years, I just made this article on a whim. I'm not out to disparage the site. If you don't like what I wrote, go ahead and change it. Add those Fred Seibert (etc.) quotes, and you'll have a good, fair article that won't get deleted. —Morning (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, by your own admission, you haven't been a member of Toon Zone in over six years. and yet, you decided to make an article dedicated to the site? That does sound a little suspect and makes my original observation of the use of the article for former members to disparage and libel the site under the guise of false names and IP numbers that much more probable than not. Nemalki (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's please stay civil and focus on content, not contributors. There is no reason to think there is anything "suspect" in Morningpulse's editing. We're just having a disagreement about the notability of what he chose to write an article about; there are no ulterior motives here. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Morningpulse: "That's all I can find" doesn't sound like a very strong case for notability.... <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:23, 15 June 2009 (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.