This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
How exactly does an 80-second viral video merit its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Because it's covered by multiple third-party sources. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Recentism anyone? Let's just wait and see if there's any discussion of this in months or a year from now, and delete then based on notability and recentism. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While I do feel that Flash animations tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia, I am concerned how the article has no content to argue for notability. Severely needs a reception section or information on its popularity.--Remurmur (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
GeeJo, while it's true that this video was "covered" by multiple third-party sources, most if not all of those sources "covered" the video by simply writing one paragraph about it, amounting to "Hey - here's a video that's funny for a few reasons. Now, go watch it!" That doesn't make the video noteworthy, especially when this "coverage" is coming from sources like FM4, an Austrian radio station, which is presumably not an expert voice regarding American-made graphic novels, '80s cartoons, or viral videos. H3G3M0N (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll argue that if something like Watchmensch can be considered noteworthy, then this video can be as well. If anything, the creator of the animation is steadily becoming noteworthy. Not only is Partridge now a known entity on the net, but he's also done several professional cartoons for the BBC. Plus it is still being discussed on the internet & mentioned in blogs & articles. Not nearly as much as it was when it first hit the web, but still a steady stream. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Dudes and dudettes, if we tried to delete content for being stupid, we'd have to start with our articles on wars. If we tried to delete content for harming our ignity, we'd have to start with the "edit" button at the top of each page - nothing else will be effective before that's done. If we tried to delete content for being niche, we'd lose an awful lot of obscure festivals and traditions that are of value to the right reader. If anything, be glad for good articles on insane topics. Most of what Wikipedia does is done better by other, specialized websites, but this strength isn't matched anywhere. --Kizor 09:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a cop-out because you like it. MANY articles covering more significant subjects have been deleted for reasons of notability. It appears completely arbitrary -- at the whims of folks on Wikipedia staff what stays and what goes. But this? It is only a little flash video parody aimed at a niche audience within a niche audience (Alan Moore fans among comic-book fans). When whole persons who have produced influential and/or controversial bodies of work in their fields disappear from Wikipedia regularly, enshrining this sort of cheap triviality is insulting. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Article is not notable. It has enough sources so that it should be mentioned somewhere on wiki. I suggest merging it with another article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
While the creators say it is a satire of 1980s cartoons it seems more a satire of 1970s cartoons. 1980's cartoons were pushing the envelope as seen in Thundercats where we see a character (Jaga) die on screen, or G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1985 TV series) where three Joes discover the skeletal remains of their counterparts in a reality where Cobra won ("Worlds Without End") or Shipwreck is driven is near insanity to extract a piece of information he has ("There's No Place Like Springfield").--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That may be so, but I don't see how this discussion can improve the article in light of WP:OR. If all reliable sources and the creators say 1980s, then we say 1980s. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a parody of violent movies that are turned into kids cartoon shows. This was done a lot in the 80's. There was a Rambo cartoon. A RoboCop cartoon. Many more. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Saturday Morning Watchmen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: