Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny
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 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)

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)
 * Since when is Dr.Demento a valid yardstick of notability? wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since he became the most important DJ in his genre of music. WilyD 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep - it'd be nice to source the chart, eh? That said, I'm pretty sure this is a far more notable part of web culture than Newgrounds is.  WilyD 13:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep Notable song by notable artists. --Billpg 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the sheer number of hits on google should prove its notability. 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 600 unique hits is actually very, very high. Uniques are just counted out of the first thousand.  WilyD 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is Newgrounds material, yes.  But it has more than 7,000,000 views there (and 10,000 reviews I might add), and there are more internet sites, including Albino Blacksheep and Weebl's Stuff, that also host it.  Plus Neil Cicierega is a notable figure even before this cartoon was released.  Also, the song itself topped Dr. Demento's charts (the Funny 25) as of now.  The sourcing of the chart seems necessary.  --Wartys Neryon 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't understand why a few seem to be bent on deleting this entry.  Google it (80K hits) and other flash entries.  BALEETED%21 and Marshmallow%27s_Last_Stand both show fewer hits on Google and nobody's deleting those (and they're both subsets of Homestar_Runner).  It's a popular flash that's still popular long after its creation.  Notable press coverage?  Search google news.  Does a mention in the Toronto Star count?  Let the entry be. Sparkhead 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that "above" only establishes it as highly notable, perhaps you can offer some rational for deletion? WilyD 18:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Strong Delete Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB. Fails WP:MUSIC. Google hits results are sludgey flood of blog and forum posts which have little or no currency for Wikipedia article verification (and there are plenty of crappy flash animations on the web which get lots of links and ghits). The main claim the article has to legitimacy is that the subject has a "cult following" on the web. But no reliable, verifiable, independent, reputable sources have been offered to prove this. Bwithh 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I inserted the reliable, verifiable, independant, reputable source that had alredy been offered to prove this in as a reference. The articles passes your complaints (except maybe WP:MUSIC).  Strong delete is an untenable position, would you consider putting in something more fitting? WilyD 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think Dr. Demento's chart counts. The ranking is mainly based on listener requests (a totally opaque and unreliable sample prone to ballot-stuffing and localized to the subculture of Dr. Demento's audience) plus other influences like "timeliness"(?). Ultimately: "In the end, it is simply Dr. Demento's judgement of the hottest and the coolest, no more, no less."). My Strong Delete vote feels just fine, thanks very much. Bwithh 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not refering to the Dr. Demento issue, but the coverage from the largest circulating newspaper in Canada WilyD 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * They're beasts of the same spawn. They cannot be seperated. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is about both. You might want to read the first few lines. Sparkhead 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Strong Keep - Per above arguments. This is a very notable flash, as can be seen here. --EBCouncil Speak with the Council 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Definitely notable. --Sally Dunn 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note vote was user's 5th edit Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Worthy to be notable, i'm sure its an intrest to many people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skasian (talk • contribs)
 * Note created in Oct 05 but this vote was user's 11th edit.


 * Keep per EmiOfBrie main argument and WilyD's defense. Agne 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - YouTube and Newgrounds rankings are not qualifiers for notability, nor is "interesting". MikeWazowski 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep - It's a major internet phenomenon, worthy of an article in Wiki. Those arguing for deletion severely underestimate the USoUD's popularity. - Alex, 74.133.188.197 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Anon account but with other AfD votes and edits. Maybe shared. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Super Keep - It's a very popular song. If we delete this song, then we have to comb through every single album ever released that's on here and decider which songs are 'notable' and which aren't - come the fuck on!  Any song that at ANY point was considered notable, is notable. youaredj 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC
 * Note Vote was user's 7th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a very popular video on the internet, and certainly deserves its own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klosterdev (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Kee - There is nothing wrong with it its not offensive or a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.189 (talk • contribs)
 * Note Anon user's 23rd edit but most other edits were to a page about a HS and user talk pages.


 * Keep. It's a pretty popular song, and I've seen several pop culture references to it. bibliomaniac15 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note User gives conflicting vote below but has not struck out this one. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with all keep arguments above, and I know that this page is of great intrest and is a good resource to many people, and isnt that what wikipedia is for???  19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyatty (talk • contribs)
 * Note vote was users 10th edit


 * Ultimate Keep. I have never heard of Newsgrounds.  This animation is clearly notable for other reasons.  It is linked to by several other pages in the Wikipedia.  It contains useful detailed content.  Deleting this entry would be vandalism.Colonel Warden 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Vote was user's 4th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep. We have stated in the article that it has a bit of a cult following and it has obviously a very popular flash video.  Deleting this would be like deleting the article on the original YTMND. -Diabolos 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Extreme Keep. This is not just a Random newground's animation. Is it very popular everywhere... Deleting this would be like deleting the Numa Numa dance or deleting the "all your bases are belong to us". -lol man 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Vote was editor's 10th edit with majority of other edits being to 2 other AfDs


 * Keep. Pretty well known online animation, seems notable enough to me. orudge 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a microcosm of Western pop culture: 3 or so minutes of music and/or video that encapsulates a very large chunk of (mostly) late 20th century pop culture. Even if USoUD turns out to be a flash in the pan and sinks without trace after a few months -- well, 9 months and counting to date -- it is significant for two reasons: firstly, by virtue of having that moment of fame, and secondly, because it reflects so much of pop culture. Limeguin 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful, informative article and just as important as the many episode summaries for various programmes which can be found on Wikipedia Letstalk 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Account created in June but this vote was user's 7th edit


 * comment: I came to this afd intending to close as keep since its rather unanimous, but I'm inclined to suspect that most of the keep votes are single purpose accounts. I recognise none of the usernames from previous afds, and several have a similar signature style. I can't check everybodys contrib history atm though since I'm not on a high speed connection. Could somebody check and tag? Much appreciated. ~crazytales56297 - t- e 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The first afd on this article did have a lot a spa's. This one doesn't.  I was actually a bit amused when Bwithh added the sock warning.  There's a few, but the majority of the discussion has been with established accounts.  Why would you be inclined to suspect differently?  After all, it's not a vote anyway, right?  If a spa comes in and makes a valid point, it's still a valid point.  For the second time this article has passed a deletion nomination, can we stop with the afd's now? Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Weak Delete- I liked the music video, but this article doesn't fit notability. The Numa Numa is different because it was on the news. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bibliomaniac15, you shouldn't go voting on afd's if you have no idea of the article content or history. If you check the text above and history, you already voted this article a keep last week.  Today you voted delete, then changed it to a weak delete. Seems to show that you seem to be voting for the sheer joy of it without knowledge, or you have some sort of split persona. Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that I enjoy changing votes just for the fun of it. I have checked the history and read the article several times. Before, I voted keep because I liked the music video itself, and I didn't check Wikipedia:Notability. Now that I look at it, it fails notability (no news about it), but only because of massive popularity and watches did I change it to a Weak Delete. Although eventually all people and articles run to bias, I strongly suggest that those who vote look at this issue from a neutral point of view, and not because of liking or disliking it. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe no news, but as stated earlier, don't you think that being (so far) Dr. Demento's top request of the year would make it notable? It's not news, but Dr. D's show is featured on numerous mainstream media radio stations.  this song has garnered a ton of national exposure in the USA, and possibly worldwide too (I don't know about Dr. D's popularity outside of the USA) -- EmiOfBrie 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep very well-known and notable internet meme.--Jersey Devil 05:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, judging from the comments above it seems to be very notable. bbx 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.--Myles Long 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have went through and tagged any potential SPA. Following that the consenus "vote" goes as 5 solid deletes (counting nom), 16 Keeps from established accounts, 8 Keeps from potential SPA, and 1 editors two conflicting Keep/Delete vote. Hope that helps! Agne 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Agne. I apologise for my possible assumption of bad faith. ~crazytales56297 - t- e 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is extremely popular as a internet meme Yuckfoo 18:44, 17 September 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.