Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrational Exuberance (Flash cartoon)

Not encyclopedic. We don't need an article out of every Albino Black Sheep flash animations. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 03:26, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC) It's not anything notable, it's definately not the next AYBABTU, so it needs to go. --Sponge! 03:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't an Albino Black Sheep work.--The_stuart 22:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the genre of animutations and therefore I feel on safe ground saying that even the most famous animutation does not deserve its own article. Since animutation is to Flash as leftovers stew is to cuisine, I'm not even sure that animutations as a subject deserve more than a mention in some more general article.  Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Its a notable genre and a notable cartoon steming from a uniquely modern phenomenon that is going largely unnoticed. Isn't Wikipedia the place to record these obscure things? Your opinion of the genere is not important in the grand scheme of how many people see it and want to know what it is, and why it is. KEEP --The_stuart 15:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a notable genre only in that it's the genre with the least barrier to entry, since its identifying characteristic and reason for being is basically "random crazy shit crudely cut'n'pasted in with a weird song to make a Flash cartoon." It is not like a mashup that requires a decent level of skill to create and in which there are notable examples such as The Grey Album; animutations are "intentionally primitive" but that just means that someone who just downloaded their cracked Flash program that afternoon can say "oh, I can't do anything that isn't primitive yet, so I'll just make an animutation, because those are supposed to be primitive!"  No change of vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Same thing can be said about the art work of Jackson Pollock, but he has an article.--The_stuart 22:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Jackson Pollock has been in the Guggenheim. Irrational Exuberance has been on Newgrounds.  Slight difference there in notability levels.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that if/when/as this page is deleted, that we will no longer need a disambiguation page for "Irrational Exuberance" and that title can then be used for the speech by Alan Greenspan memoralized in the book by that title by Robert Shiller. (I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this article -- having no idea what the word "animutations" means.) Morris 15:23, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irrational Exuberance yatta and Irrational Exuberance veloso don't get even 1000 hits combined. www.verylowsodium.com (which is more than just the comic) has an Alexa rank of 1,829,990, trending down. Niteowlneils 23:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least merge. The animation's significance cannot be described from one viewpoint -- to your grandmother it's meaningless, while many Internet users are quite familiar with this animation. In my mind it is not the animation that is so significant, it is the catch phrase 'Yatta!' that spawned from it. You undoubtedly have little intention of deleting the Yatta article, but without this animation, the song would be beyond obscurity. A good compromise would be to plug this article into the Yatta one.Spamguy 10:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- Note: this was Spamguy's first edit.
 * One of the reasons we wouldn't delete the Yatta article is that the single went triple-platinum in Japan. Your assertion that the song would be "beyond obscurity" without the help of an American-made Flash cartoon is, to put it mildly, suspect.  Even if we're talking about its Internet popularity, your idea that it was not the official music video with its genki naked-except-for-leaf guys and its special effects, but an American-made Flash video that said "Hey, here's this crazy song!  We don't understand the lyrics, so let's just put in English words that emulate the sounds!" that established "Yatta!" as a catchphrase is, again...  unsupported by any evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, you've proved your point, I haven't. I withdraw. Spamguy 17:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)