Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TvTome Adventures


 * 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 this and co-nominated article Deville (Talk) 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

TvTome Adventures
No reliable sources, only a dozen Google hits. Completely non-notable flash animation series. Also nominating Characters of TvTome Adventures. Delete per WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This page and and the character page is the result of hours of effort by mutiple people. The site it's hosted on gets 50,000 hits per day.--Mewchu11 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The site its hosted on... That would be like keeping an article on a Geocities website because Geocities gets millions of hits a day...  Please see WP:WEB for criteria for web content and WP:RS/WP:V for information regarding require verifiability.  Wickethewok 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * but it's not Geocites, it's a small collective of sites that all contribute a significant percentage to that 50 thousand.--Mewchu11 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not sufficient, IMO. PERHAPS that collective could get an article together, maybe. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep TTA is one of the best efforts of a flash series I've actually seen. Alot of guys can make really good single-productions, but for a number of people to work on an interactive long-standing series?  That's almost as hard as producing your own cartoon show.  This flash is immensely-watch and immensely popular not just in the place it's hosted or the message board it's linked to, but all over the internet, a phenomenon that can be attributed the same power as Snakes On A Plane, 8-Bit Theater, and other notable online entertainments that are hosted elsewhere but cited about here.  This is Wikipedia, ladies and gentleman.  You document information of significant impact here, and this is significant enough.  Remove it and you'll have to say the same for all the online comics and such-like, of which their fans will fight tooth and nail against.  Thank you much, and if A Man In Black is watching...  *Grins and waves*  Hi there.  204.215.200.80 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * Strong Keep This is an excellent example of flash spriting. Sprite comics have their own section, and in that section there is a link to the main site this project is displayed on. This series is no different then having a cartoon series posted here. There are other web-toons strewn throughout Wikipedia that are sleeper hits, just as this one is. I vote for staying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.144.155.183 (talk • contribs)

Last Living Soul 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) -Last Living Soul
 * Strong Keep TTA is a great site, and I believe it should be kept here. It is a great example of spriting and the fruits of Kirbopher's labor, spriting skills, and scriptwriting. Should someone's labor go unnoticed just because one person believes it shouldn't be? Simply ridiculous. 5:24, 26 August 2006


 * Let the record show, I am only saying this to show how asinine the grounds for this article's potential deletion is. First, its claimed that the TTA article does not have reliable sources. I strongly beg to differ: The main site, the forum/message board, and Chris Niosi's deviantART profile and gallery contain all the information and details that make up the article. If you were unaware of this, you were either too lazy to look through even part of the links in the article that led to those places, or you don't seem to care whether you have legit reasons to delete this article (which wouldn't be the first time on this site). Second, you claim that because there are little Google hits, the article should be deleted. Once again, had you looked at the main TTA site itself, you would have noticed that almost the entire subdomain has almost nothing that a Google search would pick up, specifically, the fact that loosely 90+ percent of the site is done entirely in Flash. In fact, the only page that isn't is the FAQ page. Therefore, the only way most Google searches would be able to find the site is if the search query had "TTA", "The Series", or some words or phrases from the FAQ page, and even then, given how broad the results of all but the most precise search queries would end up being, many people would more likely than not have moved on to a different activity by the time they find the Google link. Last, TTA is labeled as a "non-notable flash animation series". In the first point, nice grammar. Please enlighten me as to why Wikipedians use "non-notable" as apposed to something that doesn't sound like it came from a high school drop-out, or at least is in a standard dictionary, like perhaps "unremarkable"? Or why not just use a phrase like "not notable", or maybe just "in violation of Wikipedia's notability criteria"? And then there's the glaring fact that you neglected to capitalize "Flash", but I digress. Apparently, you do not seem to know that notability is relative. In case you need a reminder, something that is "relative" is something that is difficult to or otherwise incomparable to something else. For example, there are a large number of people who have heard of and/or seen the Homestar Runner cartoons. In fact, I have met a lot of people off the internet who have seen some of them and enjoy them. Yet those same people have not heard of 8-Bit Theater, Ctrl+Alt+Delete, VG Cats, Penny Arcade, or are familiar with webcomics in general. The same applies here. Just because you haven't heard of TTA does not mean that anyone else has. As it has been stated before in this discussion, there is a large following of the series and of Chris Niosi, not just on its forum, but with many other (and, according to Wikipedia, notable) individuals and groups (Matt Wilson for example). From what I can see, there is only one person who nominates articles for deletion. That being said, if each article nominated for deletion was deleted just because the Wikipedian that suggested the deletion hadn't heard of it, then it would eventually get to the point where all of Wikipeadia would be deleted. I think I have made my point by this time. Were you able to follow all of that, or did I use too many big words for your brain to comprehend? Cukeman 00:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Why Should it be deleted? Countless other flash series/webcomics are on wikipedia. Madness and Bob and George are a good example. Danos 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that all above accounts except for Mewchu seem to be single purpose accounts. Wickethewok 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent strategy, good sir! You see someone that can match wits with you and ignore him! Cukeman 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been a member of this web based database for an extended period of time. I am not a single purpose account, I was simply unaware my account had not been signed in. Despite the fact that two people have argued, and one had made an angered attack out of frustration does not hinder the points made. Despite the fact the sprite based series was not exceedingly well known does not mean it does not have a following, or is situated in truth. Infact, I, among many others, use Wikipedia to look up information on things we don't know too terribly much about. Isn't that the entire point of an encyclopedic database? To find out information on things you may otherwise be unable to get data upon with ease? Sean Matsuda 14:05, 27 August 2006
 * Ok, number 1, i havnt used my account RECENTLY, but that does not make it a single purpose account, and number 2: even if it is, they are just voicing opinions.... correct me if im wrong but you dont have anything against THAT do you? Danos 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could one of you guys please tell me how this meets WP:WEB or WP:V? Wickethewok 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, to boil it down to the simplest terms, all you want is proof of existence as a source of information prior to being HERE in WIki (Verifiability) and proof of having some sort of reaonable impact according to your code (Notability), right? Fair enough.  I will begin with Verifiability.  Simply spoken, anything that has an existence prior to being mentioned here, on Wiki, is an external existence that can be looked up and found to exist somewhere else but here.  If I look up TTA on Google, the first thing I'm going to find is not its Wikipedia entry.  It has a site, and there is information and media, therefore it's verified.  The link's right in the page.  Have a look and enjoy yourself.  NOW, I will hit notability.  Heh heh heh...  I've been looking around this place, especially at flash cartoon references and online comics.  You've got quite a list here.  I'm impressed.  There's a whole lot here that I haven't even heard of.  I guess, knowing that, I'd certainly want their pages to remain afloat if I wanted to look up stuff about it without hassle.  The case you're creating would eliminate that for TTA, thus creating a gap of information.  TTA is, largely enough, no different from popular sprite comics or flash cartoons that you have listed there.  Actually, I'd say it's better than some.  Are you trying to say Peanut Butter Jelly Time is some how more important than an excellent show with a plot?  Hardly...  That banana's just a repeated meme.  And having lost an arguement about a meme here earlier (See A Man In Black about "Objection!"), the thought that that would deserve to be here - nay, alot of the other stuff here - more than TTA strictly confounds me.  To me, it would stink of hypocrasy.  And that's my arguement.  Have a nice day. 204.215.201.47 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * Wikipedia articles require reliable sources to show verifiability. This is not negotiable.  Wickethewok 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this article's source unreliable? The person directing the editing, and verifying the information is the man who wrote and flashed the entire series! How could you get any more reliable information then that? The people that do touch ups and the like are fans who have watched the series, and are close with the author, therefore knowing the series storyline to a T. I fail to see how our sources are unreliable.Damian 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A person is not a reliable source of published information. If you read WP:RS, you will find that people are not publications.  This animation series does not meet WP:WEB, which requires secondary and indepedent sources of information outside of people involved in its creation.  Wickethewok 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't buy that, Mr. Admin. Your definition is ever so slightly askew, and if this whole site operates under that principle, then you are the caretaker to a swiss cheese factory.  I wonder what else is missing around here or is mistaken under this narrow mindset.  Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable data-source under that guideline.  It speaks of an 'incredible' hubris.  With no insult to your duties as an administrator, I think you should revise your standard.  It lacks versatility. 130.49.145.77 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * Actually, WP:WEB says, and I quote, "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria..." As such, as long as TTA has at least one of those three items, it's defines as notable. The third criterion is read as follows: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Unless I am mistaken, Fireball20xl, the host, constitutes as "distribution of the content", and all staff members of the site are completely independant of Chris Niosi, unless "being friends with" is a reason to say otherwise, which is preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukeman (talk • contribs)


 * Straight from WP:V: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This subject certainly seems to fall under that category.  With regards to WP:WEB, I would say that being featured on Fireball20xl is trivial - there are many webcomic/art hosts out there - clearly not every one of their artists is notable.  Wickethewok 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Points to previous comment.) Dodging the issue of the site's shortcomings in reliability does not make you right.  By quoting an inefficient and outdated standard, you are not actually proving anything.  You have a responsibility to make available the flow of information both important and not.  As long as it isn't total crap, it should be alright.  Reliability means that it's not hearsay.  That's all.  Putting a halt to this is like shirking responsibility.  You're not thinking of right or wrong, because there's certainly nothing wrong with this page or site attached.  You're being rather petty just because you don't think this has any impact on people.  Except, of course, that that cannot be true if it is maintained and kept intact by the people who like it.  Lemme tell ya.  A bunch of fans may not necessarily equal the power of your Admin status, but your status as that Admin does not make you right by default.  Go hunt after something with harmful content and REAL questionable material.  This isn't the droid-  Errr, page you're looking for.  130.49.145.110 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * On the other hand, surely you can admit that it's quite difficult to have a third-party with something as an animation series. You claim that the forums that holds the TTA forum is not third-party, you claim that Psyguy, the webmaster of Fireball20xl (who, at the time he began hosting Kirbopher, only hosted his friends who needed and wanted a host), is not third-party, and you claim that (and this is a very wild guess here) about 5,000 people (including TFS forum members, deviantART and Sheezy Art members, and a couple miscellanious forums) who all support the information in the article is not third-party, so what is third-party? Or are you going to stop giving partial bullshit and give us pure bullshit (and if you think I'm being uncivil, I haven't gotten started)? Cukeman 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Third-party would consist of separate publications, from something like Wired, IGN, or some online news source. All information has to be previously published for it to be a part of Wikipedia per WP:OR.  Basically, a third-party source is a publication that would be generally considered accountable and trustworthy and is not associated with the subject at all.  Mind you this is not an attack of any kind on the members of the website or anything - I mean, would you consider ME a reliable source of information?  ;-) Wickethewok 21:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but that's only because, yes, you are now giving us pure bullshit. Cukeman 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you feel Wikipedia policies should be changed, I welcome you to bring your opinion to the talk page of that particular policy page in question.  Wikipedia always welcome new input and ideas to policies, even though they may not necessarily be enacted.  Wickethewok 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you that stupid?! We've been given our opinion for the past half-week! Open your frikkin' EYES or use your damn BRAIN! Cukeman 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm merely stating that AFD is not the appropriate venue for policy debates. This is the enforcement of policy rather than the creation.  Also, please refrain from insulting other editors, including me.  01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cukeman, seriously layoff the personal insults. They do more harm than good for the cause. Insulting someone doesn't prove a point. --Mewchu11 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they sure do help me out. XD 'Kay, I'm shuttin' up now. Cukeman 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: You raise points that may or may not be valid depending on strict following of the rules. If you honestly think this applied to everything you say it does then I request that you delete 99% of Category:Flash_cartoons. I can honestly say that out of all those articles, I could count the ones that had a reputable 3rd party source on one hand or maybe even one finger. The point I'm making is that you seem to be relying on either an unclear, unenforced, or unenforceable rule. What makes this article your target? Even if it falls under your blanket terminology why delete articles with actual effort put behind them when Total vanity pages are still amok? Also even well known series shouldn't be safe from your "reason". So I say to you this: Kill them all or leave it alone. --Mewchu11 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment Yes, this is what I have been speaking of. You, the Admin of Wikipedia, may not be actually making a personal attack, but you are, in fact, creating its evil cousin known as "gross negligence".  Under normal circumstances, your reasoning would make sense, except that the situation is not cut and dry, not black and white.  I will say a person is not reliable information.  One person.  Several dozen?  Tons more?  Different story.  What you don't realize here is that we live in an age where people with a common goal can create something from nothing by sheer force of will and desire alone.  Therefore, a people (as in many more than one) can have a notable, verifiable, reliable effect on things.  Mewchu, here, sums up everything I've been saying.  TTA belongs here as much as anything else, in fact more so than alot of other stuff.  I wager roughly one-third of the information made here is a waste of time by being total trash in the first place.  Furthermore, I have not seen a satisfactory answer to quite a large number of good points made here.  So, on top of Mewchu's statement, I place another.  If you feel the need to delete this place in the line of duty, that's one thing, but to come here and open a discussion and then pay almost no real attention to what's being said is not acceptable.  If you're going to discuss something, discuss it.  Make your counter-statements heard systematically and well-thought in response.  Thus far, I find little in this debate to dissuade me from my arguements. 204.215.201.101 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre, Displeased.
 * I would like to get more opinions from other editors outside of those of us currently in debate. I would suggest that if the closing admin finds validity in both sides of the argument, they relist this to attempt to form a consesus.  Wickethewok 06:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, and one shot accounts voting in favor doesn't make it any more warranted. --ArrEmmDee 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, pay attention. You see all the nice big paragraphs with opinions expressed and claims made in full relevance to the topic at hand?  This is not a vote.  This is a discussion.  It even says so up top, so don't even use that word in reference to this subject. 130.49.145.125 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * Uh, no duh? You're acting insanely uncivil-- of all the deletion discussions I've read on level with articles like these, yours has to be the most heated. If I ever had an article I didn't want deleted, I doubt I'd be insulting the intellect of Wikipedia administrators and the average Wikipedian like you've all been. ArrEmmDee 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's only Cukeman, and I don't condone what he's been saying (at least not HOW he's been saying it). Just because he's being inflamitory doesn't mean you shouldn't read everyone else's thoughts, I've been trying very hard to keep things intellectual and agreeable in MY entries. Honestly I can't do anything more than that--Mewchu11 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In my defense, Wickethewok was not thinking or being objective, as he completely ignored half of our arguments. Furthermore, if "be an ass-kiss to the people in charge or shut up" is the rule of the road as opposed to "open discussion, in the sense that we are all equal here", then, well, you may as well delete any article nominated for deletion, since the defenders of the article can't really say anything to defend their argument. All I'm doing is being more forceful in my opinion and my showing how the way Wikipedia is run is not on a level playing field, so to speak. Cukeman 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cuke, I'm getting the message across just fine while still maintaining my bad attitude and not even stepping on the staff guy's toes. However, that does not mean I have to be all nice about it, which I won't.  This is not my beutiful house.  This is not my beautiful wife.  Same as it every was...and so on.  What my big issue is, right now, is that my opposition can't formulate an opinion without pulling out a red herring, making a hasty - very hasty - generalization, or avoids the statement at hand when faced with rebuttal.  How utterly aggravating to find a communication on the part of the aggressors... 130.49.145.116 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * Delete, it's an article about a series of Flash animations, so you'd expect it to show up on google, yet it gets 39 unique hits (from wikipedia mirrors and message boards). The site it's on has an alexa rank of around 40,000, yet the traffic ranking shows that this particular series gets less than 1% of those hits. There's no notability shown above, just lots of shouting, and there are no reliable sources independent of the site that even mention it. - Bobet 10:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to try reading the discussions again, because we have made adequate rebuttals to all of your arguments. Cukeman 14:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I felt you had, I wouldn't have made the comment. - Bobet 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but no dice there. A rehashed argument that's been debunked can't possibly hold any meaning here.  By default, your words can't be true if it's already gotten shot down.  You either have to come up with something new or come up with some sort of rebuttal.  Recycling it doesn't make it better.  Face it.  You have no real reason to go through with this.  It's all fluff, showmanship.  I can think of plenty of reasons to keep TTA, as I have already, but not one single reason to drop it that makes any sort of rational sense. 204.215.200.37 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre
 * 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.