Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Fingers (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 keep. - Bobet 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of text, but no real assertion of notability. All of the cited sources appeared to be originated by the author of the cartoon himself or affiliated persons. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep- It's a notable internet phenomenon right now, but I'm sure it will eventually die down...--Releeshan 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The article has been around for while and has a lot of edits by a wide range of users which leads me to believe that the cartoon is of some notability. Granted, the article should express this better, but I see no justification for deleting an article with this much effort put into it simply because it's a little weak in certain areas. -bobby 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, seems to be edited by wide variety of users. --SunStar Net 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - several episodes hosted by Weebl's Stuff with up to 2.4 million views [1]. I'll add this to the page. Ac@osr 19:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Well, no one so far has really given any sort of actionable reasoning. Anyways, I don't think Salad Fingers has received any noteworthy independent coverage, so it seems like it should go into the notable parent article of Weebl's stuff. The cruftiness really needs to be toned down and the episode summaries slashed to a sentence or two in order to accomdate the merge. Wickethewok 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • but merge with what? 131.111.8.102 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, I don't see any point in WP:WEB to save it, but it is well known on the Internet. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I admit that it is notable, the precedent has been set: [2], [3]. Therefore, with a heavy heart, but with the welfare of Wikipedia in mind, I vote delete. Ekjon Lok 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've been continuously looking up Salad Fingers on Wikipedia for years. I agree it's not a great article compared to other more concise and neatly cited ones, but it's great when someone wants to know what Salad Fingers is. That's what I love about Wikipedia: there's info on a variety of categories... though lately, I've been seeing many internet phenomenon articles getting shut down. It's disheartening. --Nuggit 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable internet phenomenon. Per WP:WEB, we don't care if a gazillion bored teenagers on the web love it, we care about multiple coverage in reliable published sources. Sandstein 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a real thing and anyone that wants to find out more about it should be able to come here and find out. Just because a few people dislike it, doesn't mean it should be removed from the site.
  • It's not a matter of like or dislike. The question is: does it fit Wikipedia's notability criteria, and is it encyclopedic? --

Nlu (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no question about the article's encyclopidity. It is in high quality and standard above any doubt.
  • I like this word, "encyclopidity". This should definitely enter into Wikipedia's vocabulary. Something that ought to be included would be described as of "high encyclopidity". Questionable entries would be of "low encyclopidity", or we would say that "the encyclopidity of this article is in doubt". This would definitely improve our discourse. --Ekjon Lok 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable internet phenomenon, no opposition to a merge either. RFerreira 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability established by Ac@osr. --Richmeister 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very well-known flash cartoon. Extremely well-known. --- RockMFR 05:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is important. "Salad Fingers" is a phenomenon, and as long as it is, this article has its place in Wikipedia. The article is well written and holds worthy information. definitely keep.
• Keep - I have heard of it many times. a keeper. Chris Kreider 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Ekjon Lok and Sandstein, this article has questionable encyclopidity. (Gosh, I can't believe I managed that phrase with a straight face) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that even a real word?  :) RFerreira 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like WP has spawned another neologism :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep syndicate 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep :o) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable as demonstrated by lack of any significant third-party coverage. As-is, you could even make an argument that it fails WP:V. Fairsing 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.115.198 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep First Madness Combat, then RAB, and now Salad Fingers. Who the FUCK is behind this. STOP IT, DAMNIT. --88.19.164.199 11:01, 6 November 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.