Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Cicierega

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 of the debate was No consensus. While I seriously doubt the validity of this article, and question some of the votes, there's still no consensus after the most liberal vote-ignoring. When only taking into account users with 10+ edits from Nov. 1 to Nov. 8 or 100+ edits total, and throwing out users who provided no reason for deletion and who had virtually quit editing before this AfD, I nevertheless get 8 delete votes, and 5 keep votes. I can't make a call to delete. Feel free to nominate again when the sockpuppets go away, and see what happens. Ral315 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Cicierega

The subject of this biography/vanity article decided to blog about this AfD two days after it was created [1]. It seems rather obvious to me that this has tainted the result of this AfD likely to the point that the results are unusable and/or unreliable. Note that reading the comments of the blog entry one can notice usernames from Wikipedians below also used in the LiveJournal comments, so it has had an effect to be sure. It is both sad and unfortunate that the system has been manipulated like this instead of letting it take a natural course. --Locke Cole 10:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This happens all the time on AfD, don't let it get you down. Ashibaka (tock) 22:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to me to be notable. A VfD was held before, but only 3 people voted. Google turns up 600+ hits, but I'm thinking some of those are mirrors of this article. --Locke Cole 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:VAIN we already have too many articles of this kind here. Note also that a possible-vanity tag has been removed by 86.128.106.235 (talk • contribs) on 21 October 2005. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I noticed that vanity tag removal as well. It also seems like whoever is making these articles is also making articles for this persons "albums" (see the section titled "Lemon Demon Discography" in Neil Cicierega). --Locke Cole 16:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a vanity article. Neil has not edited this article a single time. Ashibaka (tock) 20:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • An article need not be authored by the subject to be a vanity article. --Locke Cole 20:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Locke Cole 16:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as soon as humanly possible per nom, as vanity, as well as all circular redirects. KillerChihuahua 17:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable artist. --Billpg 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Any evidence to back that up? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• He invented Animutation. Lemon Demon. Made Clown Quartet. --Billpg 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• None of those are notable, other than perhaps creating Animutation, and that's up for debate since there's no credible sources indicating he created it. --Locke Cole 04:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• If he didn't, he's fooled an awful lot of people. Here's one source [2] and the animutation article lists a couple of others. --Billpg 08:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Like I said, it's up for debate, I'm not saying he did or didn't. What's at issue here for me is how important is he, and how does this single "invention", if true, make him notable enough for his own article (instead of a section in the Animutation article)? I'm sorry I didn't explain it better in my last response. --Locke Cole 08:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• And the "creation" of animutation is moot, since that, too, is up for deletion. Seems to me this is not the first such circular argument on AfD recently! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 09:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I also voted keep on that article. I think both Animuation and Neil Cicierega are notable and keep-worthy. --Billpg 16:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:BIO? --Locke Cole 21:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I have. The second to last item under "People still alive" applies here. ("... whose work is recognized as exceptional...") --Billpg 21:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• It goes on "...and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". I don't see him becoming more than a footnote, if that, in the field of digital animation, do you? --Locke Cole 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, why not. Or maybe I'm just a fan who has lost sense of proportion. --Billpg 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• You never know, but obviously you should vote how you feel on the matter, and if you believe him to be that notable that he'd be spoken of 20 or 100 years later, then I'd vote keep if I were you. --Locke Cole 01:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. --BodyTag 10:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not just a vote. You have to justify your votes. Ashibaka (tock) 20:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Allmusic.com has apparently not heard of him. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Allmusic.com hasn't heard of a lot of artists who release their music independently. -Nathew 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable on the basis of creating animutation. 23skidoo 03:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Definate internet phenomenon! --The_stuart 02:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, honestly, with all these Keep votes. The guy gets 600+ hits on Google; I'd hardly call that the sign of someone who's a "phenomenon". You may like the guy. You may find his Flash animations amusing/entertaining, but this doesn't mean he should be in an encyclopedia. The test is greater than if you know him, you have to believe that a reasonable number of people (online and off) would know of him. --Locke Cole 03:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-PlasmaDragon 12:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There are more than 1200 google hits that do not mention wikipedia [3]-PlasmaDragon 18:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Try 587 hits. --Locke Cole 18:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice of you to deflect the discussion away from this particular article and instead to all of the other bad articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I can't put a nomination in here for "all bad or non-notable articles" and get rid of them en masse, so we've got to do this one at a time. If that doesn't fit your way of doing things, I'm sorry. --Locke Cole 20:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Irregardless, he's as relevant to society as say Maddox. (And gets more Ghits) Should we delete his Wikipedia article? I agree that this sort of goes off on insignificant notes, such as his musical but that's the folly, in my opinion, of having to expand Wikipedia articles. The Internet is a very splintered, esoteric, and irreverent place, and part of the problem is Wikipedia's lack of guidelines for creating articles related to Internet culture. (Really, vanity articles are subjective. What's to stop someone for making a Wikipedia article about a really popular LJ article) As it is, I always think the solution is to improve an article rather than delete it. In this case, improving it might involve actually making it shorter, but I'm going on a tangents. The point is, the majority of Internet culture doesn't represent the interests of 99.999 percent of the population of the world, but unfortunately most Wikipedia editors seem to represent the .1 percent, so there's a sub-concious bias. Unfortunately, that's the problem with most encyclopedias or any attempt at an objective account of the world. (Most people probably don't care about many encyclopedia subjects) For now, I say it's easier and more constructive to improve an article, rather than delete it. 68.235.180.139 21:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Maddox gets 330,000 hits. That's a whole lot more than the 587 Neil Cicierega gets.. also, on Alexa, potterpuppetpals.com has a rank of 132,052, while maddox.xmission.com has a rank of 6,750. Per WP:WEB, this gives Maddox enough notability to be relevant to Wikipedia, but Neil's site misses the mark by a longshot. --Locke Cole 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for pointing out the Salon.com article, oddly I missed that before. Are there any other articles by respected (I respect Salon.com generally) media outlets about Neil? --Locke Cole 21:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I created this article under the premise that a biographical Salon article (for creating an entire genre) and continuous, popular work in the Flash movie scene makes notability. I stand by that. I can't say anything about his music, though, because everybody and his dog wants an article for their rock band, and those have strict guidelines. Ashibaka (tock) 20:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's my problem with the article for the most part. It seems his only claim to fame is animutation, and yet the article goes off on his musical diversions (which are definitely not notable on their own). I think it'd be more appropriate to have relevant sections of this article merged into the Animutation article. --Locke Cole 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That would best be discussed after (and if) the Animutation article survives deletion. I don't recall any discussion to merge the two before hand, but having both up for deletion at the same time would make that disussion rather difficult now. (If the merge discussion did take place, I missed it.) --Billpg 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, you didn't miss it. It just seems that the Neil Cicierega and Animutation AfD's are failing, so I thought it might be time to offer up alternatives to all-out deletion (recalling that merging is one possible outcome of AfD; it isn't just "keep" or "delete"). --Locke Cole 01:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Neil is well-known for things other than animutation. (Don't rely on Google hits for his name as an indicator, as he often goes by his pseudonym Trapezoid.) Potter Puppet Pals, for one. His music is also gaining some recognition — it's been played by Dr. Demento multiple times, for example. The article could be improved, but it shouldn't be deleted. --AdamAtlas 21:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete Per massive sockpuppet prescence. I almost closed this afd prematurely since Keep votes may have been unduly influenced by the sock cascade. If this isn't deleted in this afd, I'll open it again and keep an eye out for socks before they sway any honest voters. Karmafist 05:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Bless you, I figured something was up... if it does lose and you renominate it before me, feel free to leave a note mentioning that it's back up for deletion on my talk page. --Locke Cole 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What on earth are you talking about? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.7.130 (talk • contribs).
    • When people show up to cast a vote without an edit history on Wikipedia, they're called "sockpuppets", because they were called to the scene just to vote. Ashibaka (tock) 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • And soft sockpuppets? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.7.130 (talk • contribs).
        • People with a small edit history. --Locke Cole 07:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
          • You seem to have invented that phrase yourself. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22soft+sockpuppet Ashibaka (tock) 17:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I didn't put it in, an admin did. An admin also moved most of the current entries into that section. --Locke Cole 22:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Seems to be a pretty faulty concept and something should be done about it. Also, one can't just take 11 edits as a sign of sockpuppetry — one needs to consider the space of time over which those edits were made, et cetera. Tgies 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: as per Salon article. -- Bubbachuck 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Tgies's argument. Also improve. A sockpuppet 68.235.180.139 may be, but he has a point. Cohen the Bavarian 21:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely not notable as a musician. Animutation is maybe, barely notable, but this guy at best warrants a redirect, assuming that article is kept. Tuf-Kat 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for creating Animutations, or merge with Animutation. Potter Puppet Pals is at least as noteworthy as Badger Badger Badger. Now, I think the documenting of web memes on Wikipedia is a touch excessive currently, but that's a whole nother discussion from any individual page. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teucer (talk • contribs).
• Delete: Most of the article is band vanity, and I do not believe that there is enough relevant material about Cicierega's animutations to sustain a Wikipedia article. --Aurochs
• Delete. Non-notable, per nominator. *drew 07:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevent details with Animutation. He's notable in that scope, thus info about him as the creator should be kept within that article. -- -- Bobdoe (Talk) 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soft Sockpuppet Votes

• Keep. Cicierega's name and his Animutation/Potter Puppet Pals work IS widely recognized, and his music is becoming even more well-known by the moment with repeated plays on Dr. Demento and a recent burst of popularity on Something Awful. The name under which he makes music, Lemon Demon, is already fairly widely recognized among younger home recording artists. And no, the discography on here was not written by him, it was written by a fan, Tenniru, with the assisntance of three or four others from an IRC channel which was started primarily to discuss Cicierega's work. Tgies 21:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 11th Edit Karmafist 05:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what's a "soft sockpuppet"? It would seem to me that a person is either a sockpuppet or not. Tgies 09:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How is his Animutation and/or Potter Puppet Pals "widely recognized"? How does his music being played eight times (over many weeks) on a show that plays 30 songs a week make him "well-known" right now? If "Lemon Demon" is already "fairly widely recognized", why does the name (in quotes) barely get 600 hits on Google? Thanks for helping to clear up these problems! --Locke Cole 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Being interviewed by Salon, having his music played by Dr. Demento and being responsible for several well-known pieces would indicate that this is clearly not a vanity article. FiddyCent 02:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I still haven't seen anything stating his music has been played by Dr. Demento, just claims that it has. --Locke Cole 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbmorris/FAQ/drd05.0612.html
    • http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbmorris/FAQ/drd05.0522.html
    • http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbmorris/FAQ/drd05.0515.html
    • http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbmorris/FAQ/drd05.0508.html
    • How's that? Ashibaka (tock) 03:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, now to go read up on Dr. Demento and see if his appearances on this show would matter. --Locke Cole 04:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I read over the Dr. Demento website a bit, but it seems like being played on his show eight times wouldn't really amount to much (given that about thirty songs are played per episode, that works out to 120-150 songs per month). I've started a conversation here on the WP:MUSIC talk page to ask for clarification. Please leave a note there if you get a chance and/or have an opinion on the matter. --Locke Cole 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment FiddyCent made his 8th contribution with this Keep vote. --Locke Cole 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the update - how many contributions do I have to go before I win a prize? FiddyCent 05:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Article provided me with useful information. I'd actually like to see some more information in the article. Perhaps mark it as a stub? --Sean Knight 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Sean Knight signed up today, and so far his only contributions have been his keep vote here and a modified user page. --Locke Cole 09:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have never registered for an account on Wikipedia... I have made a few contributions over the past couple years from various IPs, but since having no account destroys credibility I won't vote. Just reading through the comments I feel that the side for deletion is slanting search results to their benefit... for example, a more fair search comparison would be "neil cicierega" vs. "george ouzounian" rather than a "Neil Cicierega vs. "The best page in the universe" comparison, since both have used various nicknames on the internet. On the other hand, this article is certainly at the very edge of allowable for vanity reasons. For the animutation article though, it is somewhat hard for me to imagine why a deletion vote was started on it, it is certainly notable enough to have an article, especially comparing against some of the other articles here on Wikipedia. I kind of like the idea of merging articles, and leaving a redirect to Animutation on the Neil Cicierega page. --128.187.0.165 (This is a massively shared IP, please don't flame me for other people trolling off it) 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the comparison was lame, that's why I used Alexa to compare "the best page in the universe" against his "potter puppet pals" page. The latter doesn't even meet WP:WEB, while the former does. One of my other replies (in this AfD) has details on the results. --Locke Cole 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And besides, the onus shouldn't be on me to prove he's not notable, the onus should be on others to prove he is notable. WP:V and all that. --Locke Cole 22:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was trying to prove notability by stating that he receives a comparable number of entries on google to maddox on a comparable google search. On a side note, are Alexa ratings really good indicators of anything? Doesn't it only rank people who go through sites with Alexa's search engine? In any case, I agree with Ssbohio below in that if this were a purely vanity article it would be split one way or the other more definitely, for example Clockcrew. Continuing Tgies complaint about the term "Soft Sockpuppet" above, it does seem to me to be a term that was invented for this article to discredit some people in this article; only 3 results in the wikipedia namespace show up see this and none of them seem to have the exact text "Soft Sockpuppet" in them (though I don't know why this page isn't included in the results... --128.187.0.165 03:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO it wasn't really a comparable search though-- few people know Maddox by his real name (FWIW, Google searches on Neil's various nicknames turn up similarly low results; see my other reply(ies)). Alexa is relevant per WP:WEB. As for Ssbohio, he isn't taking into account the effect sockpuppets have had on this vote. I didn't create the "Soft Sockpuppet" section, an admin did, however, if I were to guess, I'd imagine it's just a pairing of a modifier to an existing word. Much like pairing "soft" with "fabric" or "rough" with "fabric". I believe it is meant to indicate someone who could likely be a sockpuppet (or falls just outside the definition of sockpuppet). If you want the real explanation, I suggest you ask the admin on his talk page. --Locke Cole 03:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was unaware of his name until I read the Wikipedia article, whch led me to the Salon.com writeup, before I came back and read the deletion discussion. On the minus side, I (subjectively) hadn't heard of him until now, and there are many better known people working in the fields of music and animation; On the plus side, now that Wikipedia has exposed me to him, I recognize him as a contributor to the evolution & advancement of Internet animation. Also, there are plenty of people included in WP who seem even more obscure, though in different fields. My deciding factor was reading the comments here & seeing that there is apparently an active, heartfelt difference of opinion. I feel that, were this a case of vanity, there would be a decisive, clear break in the voting, not the relative balance I'm perceiving here. I'd recommend deleting the sub-articles about his music & merging them into his main article.Ssbohio 21:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Unless Neil whipped up the whole article himself, I would hardly call it a "vanity article" no matter what wikipedia's definition of one is. Neil may look at himself in the mirror and call himself a sexy, sexy beast but that is neither here nor there. You seem to be putting up a huge fight for deleting this, Mr. Cole. What did Neil ever do to you to make you hate him so much? He's a noteable internet celebrity. People in my high school would go around quoting both episodes of "Potter Puppet Pals" and many have scratched their heads at his animutations. -Nathew 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Votes

• Strong Keep. After seeing and really getting into animutation i found it very interesting and useful to fins out who it was started by and extra information about him. Most animutation site refer to Neil at some point and wikipedia is where i found the links to various animutation pages. trollsb
  • above users' first edit Karmafist 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Neil's been providing with good movies for six years and brilliant music for two. Now, can of you jealous morons instead work on deleting the McFly article whilst I listen to Switzerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.30.7 (talk • contribs).
  • Whatever. --Locke Cole 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it necessary for you to reply to every single comment on here? Your comment was not relevant in any way. Just because you're utterly desperate for this article to be deleted... --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.30.7 (talk • contribs).
      • You indicated there was some jealousy involved in this nomination for deletion: my "whatever" was to make it clear that simply was not the case. How can I be jealous of someone I've never even heard of? --Locke Cole 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Neil has made a name for himself out of virtually nothing. He has potential, TALENT, and intelligence. Over the past six years, he's created an internet phonomenon and a fairly successful band. After two years of making animutations, he broadened his horizons to music, and written many entertaining songs on four albums. And still there are songs that are not on these albums that are just as clever. He's also not afraid to do things that other people didn't think of, or were afraid of doing because they thought they would be viewed in a negative way, like dying his hair blue and green, or protesting about a petty internet thief. Keep this article, and at the very least put a picture of the dude here. You owe him that much. Now, quit protesting about deleting decent people's articles and instead move to deleting Charlotte Church's article, her being nothing but a talentless slut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.182.106 (talk • contribs) 14:47 and 14:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Clearly he hasn't made a very big name for himself if his sites rank so low on Alexa and his name turns up so few hits on Google. I also doubt the "internet phenomenon" and "successful band" bits. Oh, and about "do[ing] things that other people didn't think of", I knew a girl in 1994 who dyed her hair blue and green. Unless he dyed his hair blue and green at the age of 8 (since he was born in 1986), I really doubt nobody thought of it before him. The "successful band" bit could be resolved if you could show (with verifiability how it meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. --Locke Cole 02:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neil's been doing good work for years. Animutations have a huge cult following and his music is currently getting air time with Dr. Demento in California. His whole Potter Puppet Pals series has gotten quite a following recently too. A definite keeper. I agree with the poster who wants this article to include more information. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.144.47.131 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Animutation/Fanimutation: 16200 hits. Potter Puppet Pals: 35000 hits. Is that well known enough for you? --203.213.7.130 12:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. Alexa gives the Potter Puppet Pals site a ranking of 132,052. --Locke Cole 08:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's pretty goddamn good just in case you didn't know. Ashibaka (tock) 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Not according to WP:WEB which says an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better is acceptable. A ranking of 132,052 is way off the mark. --Locke Cole 21:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve. Nix the discography move ppp up, elaborate on animutation since it's his most notable accomplishment. The music part should be more of a footnote in the general bio info section and a link in the links section. Although I admire and love his music he isn't that well know for it yet, perhaps in the future the section can be readded but for now there isn't much need. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.191.168.209 (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep, but it needs to be cleaned up. Animutation and Potter Puppet Pals are clear internet memes. I think that wikipedia policy should be more resolved before articles with this sort of vanity dispute are deleted. Karmafist (the "strongest possible delete"), I'm at a loss as to why the presence of irresponsible (or uninformed?) users justifies deletion of an article over which there is legitimate controversy. Also, I am NOT a sock puppet, just a new user, though I realize this does not constitute evidence.Caterpillar 36 20:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• One of which is from Salon.com. Are the majority of Wikipedia's articles on Internet culture poorly written? Yes. The answer isn't to Delete, it's to Improve. This guy is more notable than many things that have Wikipedia articles.68.235.180.139 20:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.72.46 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. I mean, even if you delete this now, someone else is going to write an article about him in a heartbeat. He may not become an actual celebrity, but he's a GENIUS, for god's sake, and he definitely hasn't reached his peak yet. -- fananonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecow219 (talk • contribs).
• Keep! He's not EXTREMELY popular, but he does have a rabid fan-base through his music, and you can ask anybody under 20, and 75 percent will recognise either animutation or Potter puppet pals, I mean, he was interviewed for movie magic magazine about PPP. -EvilDeathBee. (note, not a puppet) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.168.29 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. He created the music for eBaumsWorldSucks.com's Flash Animation, he is also Lemon Demon and Trapezoid, and a lot of articles here are much more worthy of deletion than this one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.154.193 (talk • contribs).
  • www.ebaumsworldsucks.com only ranks 360,233 on Alexa. "Trapezoid" is a math term, so it's impossible to gauge reliably how many of the 1.2 million hits are about this guy, or about math. The article lists "Trapezzoid" as (one of) his nicknames, and that only gets 457 hits. "Lemon Demon" only gets 547 hits. --Locke Cole 00:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You can get a guesstimate about the "trapezoid" thing by searching for trapezoid -quadrilateral -shape -isosceles and observing that half of the hits for it vanish - and the first page of google hits still has math articles, and it takes until page five for that search string to yield anything about Cicierega. I'm not sure what exactly this signifies, aside from the fact that the percentage of those 1.2 million hits that are about him are probably pretty small. teucer 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The flash Animation got Front Page on NewGrounds and I believe this is some sort of petty revenge from eBaumers, though it could be just a vanity article deletion. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.130.203 (talk • contribs).
  • As I'm the one who nominated it, I can assure you it's not "petty revenge". It's just vanity article deletion (of which there are wayyyy too many vanity articles on here, so as time goes on I hope to get rid of more of them). --Locke Cole 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Movie Magic may/2005 did an article on the potterpuppetpals. Made the front cover. Distributed at walmart. The Wall Street Journal did an article on neil when he was 14 and credited him with starting animutations. Monday June 25,2001 page B1. Dr dimento contacted neil after a fan requested to hear lemon demon on his show. http://www.dfsxradio.com/9110.htm. --JerryC 21:46, 15,November 2005
  • Movie Magic must be a really poor magazine, I can't even find a home page for them. The only article about them said the magazine was done quarterly and had a print run of 250,000 per issue. [4] The Wall Street Journal article, while possible, isn't verifiable (at least by me, I'm not dishing out $50 to get access to the WSJ for purposes of verifying this). The Dr. Demento thing has been addressed already, unless there's something new to your claim that is also verifiable per WP:V. --Locke Cole 04:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as seen above under all keep votes: internet presence, effect, recent activity on SomethingAwful, Newgrounds, and other major memetic/eclectic sites. Notable for creation of a LARGE genre of internet animation. --AKismet 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep seems well known enough in internet flash animation. Cut down the article to just the necessary information about his works, or merge it with animutation. --Burbster 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The comments have already been separated into sockpuppet/soft sockpuppet/whatever else categories, and as long as the people voting are frequent wikipedia users I don't see how this matters at all. Posting a link of interest to a person in their blog is not illegal, last time I checked, and I see nothing sad or unfortunate about it. After reading the comments in the blog, it seems to me that he is more amused at this than asking for people to vote to keep the article. If he had posted "Please vote to keep this article" or anything to that effect I would see your point, but he didn't write the article and I seem to remember him stating in a comment that he doesn't care if the article lives or dies (correct me if I'm wrong here...) --128.187.0.165 18:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it would seem that some of the non-sockpuppet votes are also, in fact, sockpuppets due to this blog entry. Specifically, votes by Billpg, BodyTag, and The_stuart appear to have been made due to this blog entry. --Locke Cole ^(talk) 18:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that if they aren't sockpuppets that more votes would be better. I won't complain if you post on some website for people to look at this article for deletion, even if you imply that it should be deleted I wouldn't care. If the people make contributions on wikipedia, I don't see how it matters how they come to know of the AfD entry. And don't move my comments into the sockpuppets category, please, it is a direct comment on the notice you put at the top of the page (and which I have moved to the votes/comments section) and will have no effect if it is stuck at the very bottom of the votes that are ignored. --128.187.0.165 18:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • One more thing, quoted from User:Locke Cole above: "Bless you, I figured something was up... if it does lose and you renominate it before me, feel free to leave a note mentioning that it's back up for deletion on my talk page." Posting the article on wikipedia talk pages for people to vote against it is OK, but wikipedia users coming off blogs is not? --128.187.0.165 18:34, 16 November 2005 (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.