Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spoony Experiment

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 keep. Ged UK 08:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spoony Experiment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Won a notable award, but utterly fails every other criterion of WP:N. An extensive search has found absolutely no reliable third-party coverage. A singular award win doesn't mean a thing without any reliable third party sources; several webcomics have been deleted despite winning notable awards. What's more, the source of the award in question (Mashable) is of dubious notability itself, further decreasing the notability that the award could convey. tl;dr: no secondary sources, no notability, no exceptions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look at the criteria at [[1]] it says "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria". So a notable award would indeed be enough without anything else.

Also wouldn't TGWTG be seen as an "Online Broadcaster" which is another criteria it meets. TGWTG has been mentioned in the Chicago Sun Times which is definitely reliable. Note that the article also mention Channel Awesome which The Spoony Experiment is part of. CyberWasteland (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Spoony Experiment episodes and non admin closed by a user that recently non admin closed quite a few articles... to the point that it generated an WP:AN thread. I'm of the opinion that the previous closure was inappropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:WEB (criterion two) does clearly state that winning an award is full qualification for notability, as per CyberWasteland and my note on the article's talk page. In about a month we'll see the nominations for this year as well which may reinforce this claim (as per note six on WP:WEB). If any webcomics were deleted despite this then I'd say those deletions were at fault and not following the correct notability guidelines. I see no problem with the Mashable awards' notabilty and the award is both well-known and independent, as per the guidelines. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight. Even though there isn't a SINGLE reliable source on the whole internet about the site, it still gets to totally subvert WP:GNG just because of one award? Am I the only one who thinks this isn't making any freaking sense? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. It's right there in the specific Wikipedia:Notability (web) policy that applies directly to the notability of web content such as this. The guidelines are there to clearly describe the policy under which Wikipedia operates, which is what I've been doing. The Spoony Experiment fulfils criterion two, and probably criterion three, as laid out on that page. You can't uphold the rules when they're in your favour and then ignore them just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Besides, strictly the Mashable site is itself a reliable source that fulfils the criteria of WP:GNG. Incidentally, I don't see why you're leaving comments on my talk page; I didn't write the policy. If I can't use a published directly-applicable guideline as a directly-applicable guideline then what else can any Wikipedian do? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The award meets the requirement at WP:WEB. Obviously web related things aren't covered in mainstream media very often, so instead of having an incomplete encyclopedia, other rules were made to determine what should be included. Dream Focus 08:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Winning a web award is not notable in any serious context. --68.34.58.232 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)— 68.34.58.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Except it very clearly and explicitly is notable as already mentioned. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, winning a mashable isn't notable in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.128.85 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC) — 99.204.128.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Winning that award meets requirement #2 at WP:WEB. Jarkeld (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did it win an award though? It seems that the creator and his Twitter account actually won the award. —Half Price 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing. If it was hosted on Twitter before Spoony Experiment .com or whatever, its still the same thing by the same creator. And when something wins an award, they give it to the creator of that thing. Dream Focus 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Half Price 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mashables are a joke.96.18.225.18 (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Mashables are essentially an easy to rig popularity contest on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.233.209 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My heart says delete but my mind says keep. As perverse as it is, the article seems to pass notability guidelines. —Half Price 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: His award for the Mashables was obtained by telling his fanbase to vote for him constantly. The awards therefore don't reflect legitimate recognition of talent, and as a result do not fall into the notability requirements. --DeadHorseInterchange (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence the Mashable Awards are notable (the news website is) and if it is I don't see it as being well-known. With the lack of independent coverage The Spoony Experiment got from winning this award I say delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Open awards are common enough and respected in other fields. Just stating that he was elected by a large populace rather than a small judging panel doesn't diminsh the award. I see no evidence that the Mashable Awards are not notable either (and the fact they are awarded by a notable website lends them prestige and notability; in a general, not-just-wikipedia-definition sense). Google searching is complicated by entrants but here's a link to Google News. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (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.