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 of the debate was DELETE. The author conducts an excellent 'defence' however, which almost persuaded me by itself. However, the consensus is clearly against him, presumably because this particular flash has yet to entrench itself in the internet psyche yet. -Splash^talk 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate showdown[edit]

Yet another attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Daniel Case 06:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --Khoikhoi 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as usual. Sethie 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - has a lot of google hits, appears to be somewhat popular in internet culture. Could be rewritten better?

• Results 1 - 10 of about 583 for "the ultimate showdown" flash animation

--Phanton 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 14,100 for "the ultimate showdown" flash animation.
• Results 1 - 10 of about 65,200 for "ultimate showdown" flash.

--AySz88^-^ 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, advertising. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 06:45Z
• Comment: see another similar page, Star Wars Gangsta Rap, which is another well-known flash animation. Why are pages like this not promotional, whereas Ultimate showdown is? I don't see how promotion is so much an issue here when compared to noteworthiness. --Phanton 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Star Wars flash was created some time ago. This one was created two weeks ago. Seems to me they're trying to use WP to establish notability instead of going out and earning it on their own. Daniel Case 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Well if it only 2 weeks old then it can't really be all that much of a big thing to need a WP article written up. Agreed.--Phanton 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete garbage article pure and simple TheRingess 07:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Daniel Case. Dan 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 00:07, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, especially per the Google hits. Change vote to keep as I came across this in another context, leading me to believe it does have notability. Turnstep 13:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: Not long enough to warrant a dedicated article. If it were longer, and the Flash had been around longer, maybe it would warrante something...but then again, the random hunk of bad animation that is The Demented Cartoon Movie has its own article...why that, and not this? What's the difference?

• Keep -- I'm the original author of the article and am in no way affiliated with the flash's creators. , I made it as a genuine effort and am in no way associated with the people who made the flash. It has skyrocketed to the top of newgrounds, is being spread around, and has been hailed as one of the best flashes ever. It has probably over 30 references to American culture (if you watch the flash this will be very obvious). I was surprised that nobody had made an article for it already, so thought I'd start one. I obviously did not make it long enough or detailed enough. I _WANTED_ to mark it as a stub when I finished, but had not figured out how yet (I'm new). Just now, I had came back to see if others had added to it, and found this instead. I really do categorize this as in the same category as "all your base" and the star warz gangster rap as well as several other flashes that are so popular as to merit their own page. Are we to say that the Desperate Housewives TV show or the Colbert Report doesn't merit an entry just because it's still on? No. I looked at the deletion policies, and as far as I can tell, this should be marked as a stub and expanded. I'd really like to see it expanded and to see someone take the time to actually mark down all the references that are in it (American culture references). Everything from the back to the future car, to the terminator, to Bill & Ted, to the Power Rangers, and Chuck Norris and Indiana Jones. I'm a chemistry PhD student, and I really don't have time for it - or rather, I don't have time for everything that I want to do. If you guys want to delete it then fine, I obviously can't do anything about it. But I think it's the wrong decision. I'm not sure if how I'm posting my "defense" here is correct or not. I couldn't see a vote box, but I guess editing this page is the right thing to do. And for the record, this is not one of my favorite flashes on newgrounds, it's not even in my top 10. But it's the only one that I thought merited its own article. Cynical Smirk refers to it as "Check out this Flash cartoon with more pop culture references than you can shake a stick at." I think it ought to have a proper article with links to all the pop culture references - including snakes on a plane which I hadn't even heard of and a friend explained it to me - because it's a reference from a movie that's not even out yet! And yet lots of people noticed that and commented on it. At any rate, you get the idea. I believe this deserves its own entry, it's not some random flash in my books. It's ranked as #1 in Newgrounds, and has had over 500,000 views even though it's only been out for 2 weeks. People have even suggested giving it its own award. I feel like I'm facing some sort of stupid culture clash, the "conservative right versus the radical left." Only this time it's a bias just because the link is from newgrounds. Or at least that's what it _looks_ like from my end. I believe the articles' only crime is not being marked as a stub. Which isn't the article's fault. It's mine, and yours. Ashi_Starshade. Note: just because something's new doesn't mean it should not have an article. And I also want to note that I didn't just sign up for wikipedia to make this. I've made perhaps 5 other edits before this (science and even literature related), some from before we had to create logins.
• Delete Per nom Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lemon Demon -- 67.85.2.175;

• I think that's ideal. Ashi_Starshade

• Delete Teh Suck While indeed quite an impressive movie, it is still relatively fresh. I say delete this until it truly reaches a legendary status. Maybe then, it'll deserve an article.
• Keep pending end of growth (or merge) - I've come across 3 or 4 mentions to this meme already across unrelated areas of the Internet (even one obscure mention on Neopets for goodness sakes, here). I think Google isn't quite keeping up, because it's growing very rapidly (see above: 583 to 14,000+ in four days). So let's just wait until it stops growing; if the growth proves to stop early, delete it at that time. --AySz88^-^ 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no AfD notice on the page. --AySz88^-^ 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't explain myself very well - Keep because it's becoming more notable very quickly and it'd be much more of a hassle to have to delete and then undelete (and possibly have to merge into a stub created by someone else). --AySz88^-^ 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, ad. Dustimagic 20:31, 8 January 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.