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. Due to the web video soliciting votes, those with few or no other edits outside this topic, have been stricken.Hu12 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Monkey[edit]

Fred the Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A previous incarnation of this article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com for failing WP:WEB; I still do not see any assertion of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB in the article. The afd-related animation [1] is still hilarious, however. Tizio 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a significantly different article from the one that was deleted last year per the previous AfD; different enough that it isn't really a G4. AfD is the right place for this.--Isotope23 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again, I ask: exactly what are these awards that it has won? Heck, I can actually truthfully claim that I'm an award-winning playwright. Am I notable now? (The award was best parody of The Importance of Being Earnest in my high school English class in 12th grade.) If these awards that the web site has won are legit, then by all means share and that will certainly influence my opinion, and probably others' too. But as long as no one is willing to name them, that seems pretty suspicious to me. And if the awards are not legit, then what criterion of WP:WEB does this site meet? Mwelch 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' - Even so, it is obviously fairly popular. The forum has 669 members, 223708 posts and 4740 topics. It is obviously active, so we know that it isnt like the commic isn't well known. --Scabloo 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' - What does it matter if what the article is about is funny or not. Just because you do not find somethe humorous does not mean that it shouldn't be part of Wikipedia.
    • Answer: - Not sure if I should reply to an unsigned comment but, intending to be polite, here goes. I mentioned that I found it not humourous merely because so many had found it funny - it was simply to balance those comments. I agree, it is not a reason to delete the article. But that it is not noteworthy is. Robinson weijman 12:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commentand why exactly is it non note worthy?--Scabloo 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of it appearing in any publications outside Wikipedia. I assume that if it did this page would contain links to it. I think the question should be, "Why *IS* it note worthy? Robinson weijman 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Because it is fairly popular, and it *has* gotten some daily awards on newgrounds. The creator also says he won an award at a local college.--Scabloo 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Then I suggest you add the awards to the article. Though winning an award at a local college does not make it noteworthy, I think. You've created the article - have you also created the Fred The Monkey video as well? Robinson weijman 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Answer': No, I did not.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There would probably be no harm in having a Wikipedia article about my niece's pet hamster, either. That doesn't mean there should be one. But the important thing is that at least we're acknowledging that the only real arguments anyone is presenting for keeping are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NOHARM. For the reasons put forth in their essay sections, I can't say I find any of those arguments particularly compelling such that they'd justify making this an exception to WP:WEB. But that's just my opinion, of course. Mwelch 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, one episode was came in second for Daily Favourite on Newgrounds, while another came in the Daily Fifth. Does that count? Doubtful there is anything more though, except maybe for other episodes.SecondFifth --Scabloo 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't imagine that's anywhere near what WP:WEB has in mind for a "well-known award". But again, it's just my opinion. And of course WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and thus is more apt to be subject to exceptions than are policies. I don't personally feel this site should be given such an exception, so I still say, without hesitation, to delete. And I'd note that of the four who have thus far argued for "keep", one is the article creator and two of the other three are SPA's. But all of that said, others are certainly free to have a differing opinion, and if the article ultimately remains, as much as I'll disagree with that, it's probably not exactly going to make my Top 10 list of "Wikipedia articles with which I have a problem". (If it is deemed notable enough to stay, though, and if I'm featured as a Wikipeida villain in the next animation, then I'm going to try to press a claim of inherited notability and create an article for myself.) ;-) Mwelch 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, an award is better than none. Also, even though he can't prove i on the internet, the creator of the animation says he won an award at a local college. I know it probably doesn't count (It would be pretty crazy if it did), but i might as well mention it.Anyways - yes, 2 people who voted for Keep are SPAs, but it isnt like they are saying "Fred The Monkey FTW! Keep da Article m@te!" they posted a reply in, in my opinion, an accountable way. Finally, going back to your nieces hamster, in comparison, most likely no one publically knows, or really cares (no offense) about it. Here however, people do know, and care about the article / animation.--Scabloo 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me be clear that I didn not mean to suggest, even for a moment, that a SPA cannot contribute to the debate in an intelligent manner. I only bring up the point because it does at least call into question one's neutrality on the subject. I absolutely assume that all contributors to the argument are making their contributions honestly and in good faith, SPA or not. But I would argue that if a person hasn't done anything else or much else on Wikipedia besides work on Fred the Monkey, then it's at least possible that their perspective on whether that article should be kept may be a bit biased. Especially if the arguments they cite for keeping it are not supported by any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Mwelch 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So it appears a bunch of the keeps are SPAs. I've contributed to Wikipedia quite a bit in the past, just never made an account. All I'm saying is that it'd be a shame if the article was deleted again. So much was put into this one and it's so much better than the one that was deleted before it. Also, as has been noted, the site does have a pretty large following. The forums, while not as large as say IGN, they've still got a decent number of users and a ton of posts. The toons have been on newground.com and have won a few awards over there. So yes, they may not be the most well known awards, but shouldn't the fan base speak for something, too? Astoc 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. Just because someone appears to have only contributed to the Fred the Monkey article doesn't mean that that's all that they have done. I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for years, but only recently made account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja is the new black (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. The nomination for deletion isn't because it's an animation; it's because it's not notable per WP:WEB. Homestar Runner, on the other hand, is notable per WP:WEB, since I can point you to references to Homestar Runner in such non-trivial tech publications as Wired, as well as in mainstream media like The Cincinnati Enquirer and the National Review. If the same could be said for Fred the Monkey, then this wouldn't even be an issue. Mwelch 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Everyone should remember (and I've now added the template at the top to serve as a reminder) that this is not a vote. The decision will be made by the merits of people's arguments, not on the basis of how many "votes" each side has. It is perfectly acceptable for an IP to offer arguments for consideration. In this case, even those voting to keep seem to acknowledge that the site doesn't meet WP:WEB. So that would mean that the question seems to be whether this site is worthy of an exception to that guideline. The arguments in favor of giving it an exception all seem to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER, or WP:NOHARM. Mwelch 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' - Well, does the final desicion come down to you. The reason I ask is because since you still do not think it should be on the site, and it comes down to you, then all of this seems futile.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Absolutely not. It is an admin decision, and I am not an admin. Beyond how persuasive (or non-persuasive) others find my arguments in this discussion to be, I have absolutely no say whatsoever in the final decision. Mwelch 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh, ok. Well, i'm going to add the awards to the page. hoefullt that'll help. --Scabloo 23:59, 19 March 2007 (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.
More