Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness Combat

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. AfD is not a vote, and this article shows no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madness Combat

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

De-proded. This flash animation series is pretty popular on Newgrounds and other forums, there's no indication that it has received any outside attention that would meet the requirements of WP:WEB. 593,000 Google hits for "Madness Combat" only represents 478 unique hits. Scientizzle 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Arbusto 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Madness Combat is more than a movie. It's a deep psychgological examination of mans inhumanity to man. Hank isn't a mass murderer because he just decided to become one, he had a genuine interest andplan, on that isn't in any way unusual, and some guy punched him in the face.
If you delete this page, it will be re-created. I guarantee it.
-George Zimmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.244.46 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22 10:30:12
- Simple re-creations of deleted content are deletable by any administrator on sight. Uncle G 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard of (and seen) the flash animation, but it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Delete and if is IS recreated, salt the earth. Wildthing61476 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-? If this page does get deleted, it will be right back up in a few days... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.253.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22 14:15:19
- That is not an argument for keeping an article. If you wish to make an argument for keeping an article that holds water, please base it upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You can start by citing sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect Considering two threats to recreate the article, lets just salt the earth on this one now --Roninbk _{t c #} 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notable subject. This was in Wikipedia's Flash Improvement Collaberation (something to that effect, forgot the exact name) where articles on flash topics were chosen from time to time and improved. Does anyone know the exact name of that project, because I can't seem to find it on here. 12.218.144.147 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it! Wikipedia:Macromedia Flash Cartoon Collaboration of the Week 12.218.144.147 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That three editors, in a now defunct project, chose to work on an article has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. You aren't citing sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. That is how to demonstrate notability. Uncle G 08:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia notability criterions are kinda "high" for flash animations, Madness is an icon of flash animation, and is to bad that is gonna be deleted - RoQ 15:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about the fact that the cartoons have gotten many awards from Newgrounds, and Krinkels' batting average is 4.3/5? The thing is, it's impossible to link directly to this information, but if you go to one his cartoons here: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/58182 and then click "Profile" under "Krinkels" on the left side, and scroll down, it displays them. That counts right? 12.218.144.147 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. --Charlesknight 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I added links to Newgrounds and UGO Player to show it's popularity. It's a very popular and high ranked series on very popular sites. Millions and millions view it, if this isn't notable, I don't know what is. 12.218.144.147 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:WEB states that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I have never heard of UGO player so cannot comment upon it. --Charlesknight 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Type in UGO Player on Google, and a link to Madness Interactive comes up under the first result. Anyway, I read that part about Newgrounds, does that mean that it doesn't matter at all how popular a cartoon is? Look at Xombie. Theres' a whole section of awards from Newgrounds. If I were to do that to the Madness Combat article, would that save it? 12.218.144.147 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be facing deletion. This is most unfortunate. Madness Combat is an icon, a hero, a pioneer of flash animation. It has forever changed internet culture. It is disappointing that a reliable third party source hasn't come out and said this, but it's true. I understand that Wikipedia's rules are Wikipedia's rules, and that a mere user's plea, an anonymous user at that, cannot prove notability. This is very disappointing, but I accept the fate of this article. It appears to be evident that the enormous popularity of the series and superb effort presented in this article shows notability, but it appears that WP:WEB is far too strict. Most disappointing, but I understand that the rules are the rules and exceptions can't be made, so I need to be mature and step back. I need to display the white flag, to lay down my sword and admit defeat. Mabye in the future a third party source will display itself and this article can be resurrected. But for now, I step back and let what happens happen. 85.214.50.115 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Madness has been an insanely popular webtoon for the past couple of years, often attaining the number one slot as Newground's most popular flash for its newer episodes. It has also spawned a significant number of copycat flashes and there is a wide fan base awaiting new additions to the series. For these reasons, and for the fact that several other Newgrounds icons (such as Pico, Xiao Xiao, and Xombie) all have their own articles, Madness should stay. It's more than notable enough to warrant a place on Wikipedia. In fact, attempts to delete this article seem completely baseless and without reason. To be honest, the only problem I have with it is the POV (which definitely comes off as fanboyish), but even that shouldn't count as an excuse to delete the whole thing. RPH 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attempts to delete this article seem completely baseless and without reason"? And yet, there's still no claims to meet WP:WEB. Find one reliable 3rd-party source that has discussed this, please. Citing the existence of other articles does not address the notability of this article; to wit, however, from the links above: Pico lacks any assertion of notability (and I have tagged it as such), Xiao Xiao does have one link to outside coverage (Nike lawsuit), & Xombie is reportedly being made into a movie. Does Madness Combat have outside coverage or a movie deal? -- Scientizzle 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - There are plans to release a DVD after Madness 10 - RoQ 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? A professionally released DVD (not a DVD version of a vanity press)? With a citation from a reliable source? Please share. -- Scientizzle 03:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The Autor says that on the official forum, thats the only source i know, but i can believe that because is pretty well known that Tom Fulp is paying him to make more cartoons RoQ 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if this survives AfD, I hope you'll take it upon yourself to trim all the rampant POV. -- Scientizzle 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per RPH. --Simonkoldyk 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per RPH. --RoQ 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per RPH. --User:Physicbuddha

Comment please note that this is the first edit Physicbuddha has made to Wikipedia. --Simonkoldyk 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think that this is relevant enough to deserve it's own page. It is widely known, even outside of Newgrounds. I've had friends who always thought that Newgrounds was a porn site, but they still knew what Madness Combat was. It is a very well known piece of Internet Media. -MentosC 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's "widely known, even outside of Newgrounds", where's the 3rd-party coverage? -- Scientizzle 03:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt the earth, strike top-level detrimental comments from this discussion: no assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:HOLE applies for me personally, I get the feeling this Flash cartoon receives strong support from the 14-15 male demographic based on its content. The arguments that this is "widely known" are baseless to me, Newgrounds fails WP:WEB (by name even); cite "widely known" and until then, the threats that this page will be recreated after deletion warrant a protect in addition to adding another reason for deletion -- users willing to violate WP policy to make the article persist. -- On an additional note, this AfD is getting out of control from anonymous users. User:85.214.50.115's soapboxing, User:12.218.144.147's replies out of thread, User:168.184.253.101's threat to recreate, and User:209.222.244.46's threat to recreate (at the top level of this discussion, as opposed to nested) need to be moved or struck. They are detrimental to the discussion and hurt the eyes when glancing down the right side for a consensus. No contribution to the AfD is made by these comments. If it doesn't start with bold, can we strike or move it please? --JStalk 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The effort put into this series is commendable. Also each episode has recieved at least 500k+ views. The most recent, Antipathy, has over 1 million views. This should meet WP:WEB. --User:jrpattonUser talk:jrpatton 22:50 EST, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- This user's only contribution has been to this AfD. -- Scientizzle 03:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with vast rewrite There is a lot of original research and heavily biased writing in this article. This is way too long for a simple, yet popular flsh series. Many of the comments strewn throughout the article seem more like fan comments made by "Look at me, I'm on wikipedia!" people. Orichalcon 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fun game and I have played it before but it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a game. You should read the article. -MentosC 22:38, 27 September 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.