Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey


 * 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)

Fred the Monkey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A previous incarnation of this article was deleted at 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 is still hilarious, however. Tizio 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under db-repost guideline. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep- very funny animation linked to above which also said it has won several awards. Doesn't that make it notable? --J2thawiki 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hi, I'm the articles original creator. The article that was deleted was not nearly as expansive as this one. This one, if I do say so myself is amazing. yes, it is about an internet cartoon, but this internet cartoon is quite popular, and the page is not just a small piece on it: it is full coverage. So no, this article should not be deleted. It is not written like an advertisement, has a lot of information, and is just such a large coverage of the topic. No, again, it should stay. As for the guidelines, well, the article is not written like an advertisement, rather, like an encyclopedia. The site is well enough known I believe, and that is that. Please post here if you disagree.--Scabloo 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Kudos to the animation. It really is hilarious.  But at this risk of getting "totally added" to the sign . . . the fact remains that unless someone can spell out what these awards are, so we can evaluate their importance, I'm afraid I just don't see how any of the criteria listed in WP:WEB are met.  Mwelch 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As has been noted, the article is much more expansive than the one that was deleted last time. Also, I don't see how it's not notable.  It won some awards and has a decent sized user base.  The forums over on the site have over 650 members.   Astoc 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — Astoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.    This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * '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)


 * Delete Absolutely not noteworthy and - in disagreement to all the above comments - no, not funny. Robinson weijman 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * '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)
 * Commentand why exactly is it non note worthy?--Scabloo 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Answer': No, I did not.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt answer. Robinson weijman 07:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Admittedly, it does fail to comply with WP:WEB, but to be fair the site has a large following, the last poll alone received over 2600 responses, taking into account those who vote twice and those who abstained from voting it is still a pretty large following for a flash animation site, though not exactly ready to go head to head with the 500 pound Gorilla (homestarrunner). It has many dedicated, passionate, even a small cult following based on the premise of a new letter mentioned in cartoon, check out the forum and see fo yourself http://www.cubetoons.com/forum/index.php?board=19.0. As for the awards, of course they are not legitimate (besides the JKRISAWESOME Foundation) if you did not understand that immediately, I pity your lack of a sense of humour. Letting the little up and coming website have its wikipedia page, what harm is there in that?  --74.102.186.183 — 74.102.186.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.    This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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).


 * Keep I believe that this should not be deleated. It has already been deleated once, and I do not believe that when it has so clearly been improved from the previous article featured that it should be deleated again. I am a huge fan of the website, so I may be biased but I do not think that this has anything to do with the fact that I do not believe that it should be removed. It is a well rounded article that should not be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja is the new black (talk • contribs).  This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It would be like deleting the Homestarrunner article, which I've never seen up for deletion. They're both animations. — 71.170.49.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)


 * Delete - Fails to comply with WP:WEB. It's as simple as that. BlackBear 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - 74.102.186.183's vote should not count, as IP addresses votes are not allowed to count. BlackBear 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete. I like it. But that's no reason to keep it. It doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. -- Ben 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.