Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is Bunny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 delete (Liberatore, 2006) 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is Bunny
Google for "This is Bunny" yields 800 odd unique, and a more refined search for "world sig OR signature "This is Bunny"" seems to indicate that these are not false positives due to common words. So, this signature artifact gets lots of google hits, but I am unable to locate a single reliable source for this "meme." Unless shown that it can be verified according to the guideline for web content it should be deleted.
brenneman {L} 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Google hits out the wazoo, as a result of being something copied in signatures and the like. Still, Google hits alone are not enough for memes, and the chances of something as uber-trivial as this getting any published sources are low. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep if expanded. --Xyrael T 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT a vector for the propagation of Internet memes; also non-notable. Sandstein 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment WP:NOTPOLICY. — Mike • 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keepish WP:NOT does not seem to have anything against internet memes (we even have a page listing them). the web content guidelines are guidelines, and seem to be aimed at websites, rather than such small phenomenon. I'd say the fact that someone makes merchandise for bunny counts as a source of notability as well [1]. Somethingsin 19:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I really hate Internet memes, but as far as they go, this one is surely notable. The 7569 katrillionplex (actually 1.64 MILLION, which is actually a huge number, as opposed to a made-up huge number) Google hits confirms this. -- Kicking222 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1.64 million. Let's put than number into some perpective. There are an estimated sixty-two billion emails sent a day, so if people were using this on e-mail signatures that number would be %0.00258 of a single day's traffic. These google hits are from forum posts, which are of course a different kettle of fish. While I'm looking for a reference right now to back it up, I understand that the largest forums in japan recieves over two million posts a day. So if the fluffy bunny was a 19.2 hour fad on a single board... The point is that unless there is some meat to the google hit it's pretty useless. Find some sources, that's the challenge.
brenneman {L} 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1.64 million. Let's put than number into some perpective. There are an estimated sixty-two billion emails sent a day, so if people were using this on e-mail signatures that number would be %0.00258 of a single day's traffic. These google hits are from forum posts, which are of course a different kettle of fish. While I'm looking for a reference right now to back it up, I understand that the largest forums in japan recieves over two million posts a day. So if the fluffy bunny was a 19.2 hour fad on a single board... The point is that unless there is some meat to the google hit it's pretty useless. Find some sources, that's the challenge.
- Delete Sure, I've seen this on DeviantArt dozens of time, but the article is too small and unimportant to warrant saving. If there were a way to provide a comprehensive history of it, perhaps you could argue keeping it...but until then, it should go. ViceroyInterus 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kicking222. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per excellent nom Bwithh 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The "someone makes merchandise" link above made me wonder. However, if you click on the "start selling now" in the upper left, it's easy to find out that "At CafePress.com, you can create and sell a variety of customizable products with zero upfront costs and zero inventory investment." [2] So that's not an indication of notability. Almost the opposite: If it were notable enough to "be on a t shirt" in the normal sense, it would be printed somewhere that offered more competative rates. - brenneman {L} 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm that is true... It isn't THAT notable then... but still, someone thought it was notable enough to attract buyers and took the trouble to set up the shop, which is pretty much the same as 'someone thought it was notable enough that people would want to read an article about it and took the trouble to write one' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingsin (talk • contribs) .
- Delete not notable at all, yet another 'Me Too' intaweb meme. --210.49.181.22 09:52, 20 June 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.
