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. Inclusion of other articles is not a reason to keep; Mr. Unicorn has to stand or fall on his own merits, which appear to be lacking. Enjoyment of the cartoon argues for Youtube keeping, not Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Flash cartoon. Lots of Google hits due to common terms, but nearly all are blogs or Newgrounds-type links. No major citations in first 100 results or so. Article also appears to be part of a concerned effort to get anything connected with Robert Benfer listed in Wikipedia, all of which have failed multiple AfDs. Author of cartoon is also currently up for AfD as well. Delete. MikeWazowski 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleteAuthor has completely forgot that wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a place to put articles about stupid cartoon videos on YouTubeCoaster Kid 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stupid cartoon video"? what ever happened to neutral point of view?
  • Agree with the unsigned comment above me. It's not "stupid." --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This may be a cartoon video, but it's a notable cartoon video. On ONE of the many Charlie the Unicorn Youtube videos the video has over 1,000,000 views. This has also been posted on tons of other websites, so there's no doubt it has had at least 2,000,000 views. Pacaman! 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is not kept I think Jason Steele and Charlie the Unicorn should be merged into a new article about Film Cow. Pacaman! 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why? If they are deleted for not being notable enough for inclusion, why would the company behind them somehow become notable? An article on Film Cow would have to succeed or fail on its own merits, which right now don't look very good, after a quick Google search. MikeWazowski 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Youtube videos are deleted for not being notable enough for inclusion, why would Youtube somehow become notable? It's a popular website. Other websites like HRWiki and The Leaky Cauldron also have articles. Pacaman! 20:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. I suggest that you try to come up with at least as many references for this cartoon as can be found in The Leaky Cauldron#References. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No matter HOW many views it has, where are the multiple reliable secondary sources? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this a valuble page. i looked it up because I like Charlie the Unicorn. What would it hurt keeping it? 76.212.89.130 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Emerging meme & google search: 36k hits [1] youtube search (3 video): 2.1M views ([2] newgrounds search: 800k views [3] google video search: 290k views (3 video) [4] already spawned 20..40 parodies (I didn't count it), see youtube and google video search. Article needs cleanup. and COMMENT: We should do something about internet memes. They usually don't have much reliable secondary source / media coverage, and if they has, I highly doubt we'd find them next to the countless blogs and forums linking to the memes. Isn't it a possible way to include memes when they reach 1 or 2 million views on popular (and preferably reliable) sites like youtube, google video, newgrounds, etc? Frigo 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting search engine hits is not research, and search engine hits are not arguments for either keeping or deleting. If there are no sources, an encyclopaedia article cannot be had. If you want to demonstrate that an encyclopaedia can be had, you must cite sources. It's that simple. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Yes, there should be a standard established such as number of views to judge stuff which only appeared on the internet and was never written about in books, magazines or newspapers. But lacking a standard, I can only judge that no independent reliable and verifiable sources were cited to prove notability. I suspect that such internet notability has a short shelf-life. Edison 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a primary source. If no-one has yet documented a meme, Wikipedia is not the place to come to document it first. If people want to document memes firsthand, then they should be out there creating the very source material that you are lamenting the lack of, and publishing it in books, magazines, journals, newspapers, and the like. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for remedying that lack. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, not verifiable. Recury 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, saying it's not verifiable is nonsense, this video exists. If there is something else you are referring to, you should be more specific. I'm not the biggest fan of this video (it gets annoying after the first time and only the last line is funny), but it warrants an article. Cite sources and clean up the article.Mk623SC20K 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies if you want your vote to be taken seriously, particularly WP:V. There have to be reliable sources for us to write an article from; if none exist, we can't have an article on it. "Just go to the site and look for yourself" doesn't cut it. Recury 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you cite sources, your argument does not cut the mustard. The onus is on you to demonstrate that sources exist if you want to make an argument for keeping the article. It isn't on anyone else. Uncle G 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I don't know if it's popular enough to be an internet meme (though there definitely seem to be a lot of spinoffs on Youtube). However, judging by the number of views on Youtube, Newgrounds and other websites it does seem like quite a large number of people have seen it. Does anyone know how many people have to be aware of something before it becomes notable enough for wikipedia? On another note... comment: I find MikeWazowski's suggestion that there is a Robert Benfer conspiracy afoot to be a rather serious one, and I challenge him to provide some proof of it or else strike out his words (the suggestion seems to be that the constant recreation of articles related to Robert Benfer is a sign of a concerted effort by a small group of people to get him on wikipedia, rather than an unrelated effort by many people owing to his large fanbase, which, according to WP:DP, may be a sign of the need for an article). Esn 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Obviously the thing exists, but the article has no reliable or verifiable sources or citations. TheRealFennShysa 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After viewing the video I wondered if Wikipedia had more information about the story behind it and to my delight it did! I find it a vital service for Wikipedia to bring me information on life's obscure topics Sturmovik 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote keep - if Wiki has articles on badgerbadgerbadger, Kitty Cat Dance and The Llama Song, I don't see why it shouldn't have Charlie the Unicorn. misanthrope 11:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Misanthrope. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• LOL! I saw the cartoon on YouTube the other day and decided to check here to see what it was all about. I had no idea there was such a controversary about it being on Wiki. I say keep it on here. If the popularity of the toon gets bigger it's gonna wind up back here anyway. The skit is pretty funny in a mental sorta way and I find myself quoting it alot whenever I see someone named 'Charlie' or someone talking about candy. I'd like to see further information about it though. How and when the creator came up with it and such. As for those of you who don't like it on here: "Chaaaaaaaarlie.....Shun the non-believer! Shuuuuuunnnnn....." :-) DeanMachine16 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources no reviews no nothing fails WP:V. Whispering 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles that have no sources/external links, some about major topics, but I don't seem them getting deleted. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article tells you things about something. Call me crazy, but isn't that what an information center like Wikipedia is for? Also, I am cool. --65.31.148.13 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. 38.100.34.2 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the most notable flash animations; it deserves an article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Octeron (talk • contribs) 07:24, November 25, 2006
• Strong keep Its popular and well known therefor keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.193.240 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2006

^^that guy who doesn't know how to sign his comments— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.193.240 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 November 2006

Four tildes (~) in a row. 13:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep who really cares? why does it bother you so much? i vote keep it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.234.38 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 November 2006
• Strong keep again as per Misanthrope above: badgerbadger, Llama Song, hamster dances -- why not this (stupid) thing? Octopod 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)octopod[reply]
• Comment this article in its 12 days of existence received a lot of attention. Frigo 11:16, 28 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.