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: this is a tricky one. Articles on flash cartoons frequently generate numerous impassioned appeals for keep on the basis that it is 'popular' ('popular' meaning something different to what most people would take it to mean - the man on the Clapham omnibus having heard of this - instead referring to recognition among the geek subculture), with little actual verified evidence for notability. In this case we have much the same, at least for the flash cartoon. However, as has been pointed out, this is not just a flash cartoon but a song, played frequently by a notable DJ and partly created by Neil Cicierega who has enough reliable press coverage to be considered notable himself. Generally, Wikipedia consensus considers artists to confer notability on their work - albums by notable artists are considered notable enough for articles, for example. Individual songs are generally not, but when they attract this sort of attention it becomes more in doubt than your average Flash video.

Despite the majority for keeping - even discounting single-purpose accounts - this isn't a vote and I'm not going to describe this as a keep result; there are simply too many 'votes' that even when not from single-purpose accounts, are empty assertions of 'this is popular' and 'definitely notable' with no supporting evidence (not even a 'per x'), and on the other hand there are still legitimate concerns about verification (e.g. the reliablility of the Demento chart and the 'passing mention' nature of the Toronto Star article as extensively discussed above). But if in doubt, we keep, and there's definitely enough doubt at the end of this AfD for this to be no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)).

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (web) has a footnote that explicitly states that content hosted on Newgrounds is not made notable by virtue of being distributed by that notable site. Unless this content recieved notable press coverage, I think that it fails all three tests on Wikipedia:Notability (web) and should be deleted, regardless of how cool or interesting it is to the group of people who like it. --Dwiki 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-strong Keep - non-notable???? This song will more than likely be Dr. Demento's #1 request of 2006 (at 64 chart points, it's 26 points above the #2 song (My Cat is Afraid of the Vacuum Cleaner by Power Salad) right now, and there are only 2.5 months left in the chart period)! Sounds pretty notable to me. -- EmiOfBrie 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Dr.Demento a valid yardstick of notability? wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since he became the most important DJ in his genre of music. WilyD 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also since, in the web notability guidelines linked above, item #3 states: 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. Demento certainly qualifies as a well known online (and real world) broadcaster, meeting the requirements for 'notability'. Sparkhead 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. D has many times told his listeners how he ranks songs, the chart is hosted by a third party, true, but it uses the same rank method Dr. D uses. -- EmiOfBrie 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those numbers conk out after 600-or-so. The rest of the hits aren't unique ones. And the vast majority of these hits are from blogs such livejournal, deviantART, tripod, and other less-than-valid sources. wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
600 unique hits is actually very, very high. Uniques are just counted out of the first thousand. WilyD 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Dr.Demento and a bunch of "this flash is soooo awesome" mentions on teenage blogs don't impress everyone. wikipediatrix 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately this isn't Collection of things that impress everyone, but an encyclopaedia. It is the case that the vast majority of editors recognise this as a spectacularly obvious keep. The nom only says "It isn't notable for being on Newgrounds" which is clearly true (WTF is Newgrounds?) but it is notable for a host of other reasons, which have been expounded here. Nobody has addressed them (partially because it's impossible, I would guess) and nobody will. Later we can all recall this when someone puts Paraguay up for deletion as non-notable, and laugh at the parallels to this case. WilyD 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. Could you get any more hyperbolic? Paraguay has more going for it than Dr.Demento and a bunch of goofy blogs. wikipediatrix 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's actually pretty reasonable as both are "maximally encyclopaedic" and both have a "zero worthiness for deletion". No editors who's argued for deletion has advanced a single reason that isn't demonstratably false, and it's clearly impossible to do so. The article is verifiable and encyclopaedic. Arguing to delete this is just as absurd as arguing to delete Paraguay. WilyD 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article uses this as a source citation for its claim that USOUD "has gained a largecult following among web enthusiasts", but in fact the article says no such thing. It's an article about "animutation" in general, and only gives USOUD scant passing mentions. wikipediatrix 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that's a reasonable paraphrase of the online buzz about the music on Ultimate Showdown has generated so many Lemon Demon CD sales that he doesn't have to get a "real job." - nor is scant an adjective that can reasonably be applied here. WilyD 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even close to a "reasonable paraphrase". Ask any PR agent, there's a world of difference between a "buzz" and a "large cult following", and you're still mixing up the song (and the CD it's on) with the flash animation anyway, they're two distinctly separate subjects which get rather blurred in this article. Lemon Demon don't even have their own article, so why should the video for one of their songs have one? The logical thing to do is to merge some of this info into the Neil Cicierega article, which already devotes a subsection to USOUD. wikipediatrix 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reword it to better match the source, feel free. That's not really an AfD issue. Beyond that, presenting the inverse of WP:POKEMON isn't convincing. It is true that merge may be a tenable position (though certainly not needed, nor do I really see a point for it), but delete remains completely unsupportable. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Dr. Demento issue, and WP:WEB, let me reiterate what you so clearly ignored. From WP:WEB #3: 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. Demento certainly qualifies as a well known online (and real world) broadcaster, meeting the requirements for 'notability'. It isn't about where the item ranks on his charts. It's that fact that he is well known and distributing it, independent of the creators, on his show. Sparkhead 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about the SONG. Dr. Demento plays the SONG. This article is about the FLASH VIDEO. wikipediatrix 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're beasts of the same spawn. They cannot be seperated. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about both. You might want to read the first few lines. Sparkhead 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, the intro says "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, often shortened to Ultimate Showdown, is a Flash animation and music video." Period. It goes on to talk about Dr.Demento playing it, of course, which is precisely why I say the article is confused. Is the tail wagging the dog, or vice versa? Scraping together scraps of attempted notability for the song with scraps of attempted notability for the video can't be put together to build a notable Golem out of its parts. wikipediatrix 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to suggest the music video is disconnected from the song, you'll have to try a little harder. The internet phenomenon originated with a flash animation/music video but spread to other formats (such as radio) To suggest the script Shakespeare wrote for Hamlet is a seperate thing from review of the play based on performances, and that you can't cobble these together to establish a single notability would be just as untenable. WilyD 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more you try to stubbornly maintain. Should I bother to explain why "Song is to its Music Video" is not the same as "Script is to its review"? Nah. There's no point. wikipediatrix 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I said Song is to music video as script is to play I'm fairly sure that won't be necessary. WilyD 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the point moot...since apparently the song is more notable than the video, I changes the focus of the article's introduction to the song rather than the video. Hopefully that will stop this particular line of squabbling. -- EmiOfBrie 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note vote was user's 5th edit Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note created in Oct 05 but this vote was user's 11th edit.
Note Anon account but with other AfD votes and edits. Maybe shared. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Vote was user's 7th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anon user's 23rd edit but most other edits were to a page about a HS and user talk pages.
Note User gives conflicting vote below but has not struck out this one. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note vote was users 10th edit
Note Vote was user's 4th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Vote was editor's 10th edit with majority of other edits being to 2 other AfDs
Note Account created in June but this vote was user's 7th edit
I regard the afdsock warning notice as preemptive - I'll add it to any afd discussion I see which begins to show signs of an influx of anon IPs or single purpose accounts - especially articles likely to have a fan following. Whether or not a large influx emerges or not is immaterial. And the notice is explicitly not intended to dissuade comments from those new users. Bwithh 00:39, 18 September 2006 (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