Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End of the World (animation) (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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the World (animation)[edit]

Previously nominated and deleted. Although the article provides some indication that the creator is, or may become, notable there is no indication of why this flash animation is itself notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are still no verified reliable sources of notability, the triumvirate of inclusion. The article is doing more to promote the flash's creator than the flash itself. Keegan^talk 04:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've said it once, and I'll say it again — no independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Agree with nom that the creator may be notable, but not the animation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment I've been able to find a few sources, I havn't added them to the article yet as I wanted to get some opnions:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=504159
this one as some info in it, but I can't see the context, you can see a little bit more of it in the google news preview
http://poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=5498&part=1
http://www.poly.rpiscrews.us/article_view.php3?view=5496&part=2
http://www.coldhardflash.com/2006/09/flash-animation-10.html - "10 Most Influential Flash Animations" (2006)

Thats what I have found for now, it is hard to search for "End of the world" and "flash" or "Nuclear" but there are a few. The fact that parodies have been made of it (end of the 'tute & end of harvard (no online video)) would seem to indicate to me notability? Fosnez (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess that you are suggesting that these sources match the WP:WEB criteria:

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

This does not seem to be the case. Most of them, the acadamic ones, seem to refer to a parody of the animation and they are written by university staff. Not only are they not independant of the parody (which is the actual subject of the article), but are not non-trivial publications to present a reliable source as to the notability of the animation. The other articles also seem to lack the status of being a non-trivial source from which to derive notability, including coldhardflash.com. If the animation had been covered by the NY Times, CNN or a major online source it would be a different matter.

The animation also does not seem to fall within either of the other two criteria under WP:WEB.

Being the subject of a parody does not seem to be part of any previously defined criteria, and does not inherently seem to imply notability. In fact it is really only a parody if enough people know about the original, otherwise it is just copied from it or based upon it. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I absolutely love this flash, there is no way it is notable by any stretch of the imagination. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still nothing that amounts to significant coverage from reliable sources, and somehow I don't think there ever will be. At most, it could be given a one-line mention on List of Internet phenomena, but it might be best if it were just (once again) deleted. Not every Internet meme that enjoys a brief period of popularity deserves to be recorded on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule out the ice-capes melting, meteors becoming crash into us, the ozone layer leaving and the sun expanding, we're definitely going to delete this article Oh-kay, so there's no notability or reliable sources in this article. It's got about 26 less than any other animation, whatever. Will ^(talk) 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTABILITY. Wikipedia is meant to contain factual information as an encyclopedia. It should not be cluttered with articles about self-published flash animations (even if they are obscure internet memes) put up simply "For the lulz." (By that, I mean that Encyclopedia Dramatica falls under Wikipedia's spam filter for a reason.) None of the sources cited above are reliable secondary sources. They are all unreliable, unverifiable and mostly self-published tertiary sources, like blogs. I recommend User:Fosnez check out WP:RS to make sure he's aware of what that means. Zenwhat (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per the concerns raised above regarding the possibility to cover this topic in an encyclopedic manner. Hiding T 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.