Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Stabby


 * 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. Chick Bowen 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr Stabby


On suggestion from MER-C, Another Flash animation. "Mr Stabby" "Flash animation" gets 1160 ghits, "Mr Stabby" "Flash Cartoon" gets 656 ghits, tempted to A7 Amists  talk •  contribs 13:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Speedy Delete (Changed by Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)) - May get some G-Hits but article makes NO assertion of why it is notable. Get rid of it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, whether speedily or not. Little or no notability, not even an internet meme. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've seen it, it's pretty funny, it's not worth an article. James086Talk 15:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no opinion on whether it should be speedy or not. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot believe this. It was put up for vfd a while back but survived and has been there ever since as a useful reference. Tbh I find consider this to be nothing short of a sneaky way to justify deleting this article without good cause. I'm sure those who voted to keep it last time will not be too happy when they find out what has happened--Boris Allen 15:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any previous AfD nomination. Can you post a link to it please? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has never been deleted before, nor is there any AfD page other than this one linking to it. It may have been lost in the shuffle, but it looks like this is the first AfD. Are you sure you are not thinking of Articles for deletion/Mr Scally? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete there are too many flash cartoons out there, and most of them are non-notable. Cute drawing though. Missvain 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per A7. One out of ten million non-notable Flash animations (has there ever been a notable Flash animation?). -- Charlene 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So that's a no, then :-) Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and please yield to that temptation to A7 :-) Guy (Help!) 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepThis is a really good article guys- it's been up for a while now and survived one vfd already--Stabby 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. Note that I am a good friend of Stabby and not a sockpuppet. Please ignore my userpage, I have given up on wikipedia entirely now and have only returned here today to vote by special request of Stabby--Largeremis 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Without reference to show it is notable, than there are just too many flash cartoons out there to give each an article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Without prejudice to the merits of the article, I believe that it has been nominated politically - such nominations should automatically be rejected to deter wikipoliticing. Dave 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific in what you mean, politically. Without clarification your statement does not reveal much information to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Dumb Dinosaur and draw your own conclusions (I have no disagreement with the deletion of that article btw). Dave 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All I see there is that the nominator mentioned an intention to nominate this article before hand. Then another editor agreed. This does not show any sort of ulterior motive to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being cynical, but what I see is a user positioning him or herself for an eventual RfA by doing the bidding of other users. Given the amount of activity on Mr. Stabby, it is clear that tens of admins and thousands of normal users have seen the article and not felt that it required any kind of deletion nomination. Dave 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are forgiven(for being cynical). I disagree with your interpretation. Often users will ask others opinions before taking an action, that is all I see going on. Neither positioning, or favour trading is evident. Also, consensus is not gained by observing users lack of action(such as not nominating this page until now), instead we start an AfD and discuss it to gain consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Frankly, there is no reason to delete this. Why delete it? It contravenes no wiki rules to my knowledge. It seems to me that the whole "Delete things that aren't noteworthy" attitude flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for. Sure, this kind of thing wouldn't be written about in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But this isn't Britannica. This is Wikipedia. It is our place to have articles written about the little stuff, the stuff that people want to read about. I urge you to keep this artlcle. --Jake Papas 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:NOT is longstanding and very compatable with what Wikipedia stands for. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: clearly meets section 3 of WP:WEB through distruibution via Weebl's Stuff. If we are to accept that WP:WEB has any meaning at all, then we must keep this article. Also, see for excellent demonstration of how many people it has touched and motivated to write about it at one time or another. Nevertheless, my reason for keeping the article is at present a procedural one, as noted above. I offer this note to assist other voters. Dave 21:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Though WP:WEB is a guideline and thus subject to consensus. I find that criterion a bit odd, does that mean every flash cartoon they carry is notable? Considering the number of toons this site carries I consider this to be a trivial reference. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that common sense needs to applied. A 'major' cartoon series, widely distributed on the internet, and with over 10 million views on weebl's stuff alone, like Mr. Stabby deserves its own article. Something like Dumb Dinosaur, less widely distributed and with less views does not (but should be mentioned in the main Weebl's Stuff article. Dave 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in common sense. What I would beleive is multiple, independent, non-trivial references. Show me the links, and I may change my vote. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was talking about applying common sense to WP:WEB.  are both evidence of Mr. Stabby being a meme, in that they refer to it indirectly (I took those two links from the first ten hits in a google search for "Mr Stabby" - the other eight hits are the cartoon itself). The number of views that the cartoon has attracted has made it notable enough any how. Dave 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone ever asks me for an example of a trivial reference, I will probably use those diffs as an example. See reliable sources to see why I think this way. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using them as references for the article, I was using them as references to support my point that it has a large following. Dave 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well as I said above, we determine notability based on multiple, independent, non-trivial references. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Who the heck wants to read about a cartoon murderer? It has no use to Wikipedia at all. I don't anyone will want to research on this. I urge you to delete this article. Children who read this article (5 year olds or something) will probably get the wrong idea for a so called cartoon. Delete.  K  yo cat   (T)•(C) 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OMG Won't anyone ever think of the CHILDREN!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?? :P Dave 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, you're a fan of vampires that shoot people, ninja violence, and even supernatural murder, and you're worried about this cartoon murderer? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I say Delete- To the comments above:Wikipedia is not censored. Not censored for children, old people, no one.-- SU IT  22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My point too - I also note the above user is under seventeen. Perhaps they have been corrupted by the anime they clearly enjoy and are about to perform indecent acts with tentacles. Dave 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable cartoon series. Creator has some notability; if anything, any useful information should be merged there. MikeWazowski 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per MikeWazowski. Rever e ndG 05:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dave - article meets WP:WEB. Also, it is a short article (the right length for its subject matter) and to the point.  I think it is a usefull addition to wikipedia. Esn 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepAs per above. Also, this was only put up for deletion by Amists  talk •  contribs out of spite because I contested the deletion of Dumb Dinosaur--Boris Allen 23:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of that, pleaase assume good faith, it is a policy here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn flash cartoon. Eusebeus 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Weebl's cartoons. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. My friends in real life have talked of Mr. Stabby. Thus, I believe there should be an article about Mr. Stabby. --Burstroc 21:17, 24 November 2006 (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.