Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oolong (rabbit)

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. Sango123 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oolong (rabbit)

• Keep; This article talks about an important and well known and loved internet meme. There is a link on the original site of Oolong to a photograph taken of the New York Times, clearly showing a picture of Oolong with a dorayaki. *Link to newspaper

Utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; this article describes one of the more notable internet phenomena, is written in an encyclopedic tone, and is sourced. Ryūlóng 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Well sourced, encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not paper. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a conflict of interest to have Cpt. Morgan vote on Oolong? ;-) --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. Highly notable bunny, highly notable pancake on said bunny's head. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article does not establish notability in any way. Even less notable than Limecat, which was recently deleted. wikipediatrix 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A mistake on Limecat does not mean we need to repeat it here. Besides, Oolong made it into the NYT (I believe it's linked through) , which even Limecat can't attest to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong. Dekimasu 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; a well-known internet phenomena. El Juno 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryūlóng this is a well known phenomena. Yamaguchi先生 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this article isn't encyclopedic. The subject may be academic anathema but it's done quite well. Danny Lilithborne 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong. --ElTchanggo 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cpt. Morgan, Danny Lilithborne and Ryulong. Neier 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We read: "Oolong has been noticed by the media, including the New York Times." Then let's have a link to the specific article. -- Hoary 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ...... Ah, it's linked above. Well then, weak keep. -- Hoary 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Cha-La, Keep Cha-La. Per Reinoutr. Ppk01 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and please explain how your definition of "encyclopedic" fails to cover this. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced, well written, interesting articles are exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to provide.--SB | T 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong and Danny Lilithborne. This is part of what makes WP great. --TurabianNights 20:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Oolong is a beloved internet phenomenon, and I feel this article is well-written. If we got rid of Oolong because he wouldn't be found in a conventional encyclopedia, we would by that token have to get rid of thousands of other non-academic articles. Re: the New York Times article, if you click on Oolong's official photojournal (maintained by the photographer who owned Oolong) the article is mentioned, in English. Kitty 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A modern Bugs Bunny. tmopkisn ^tlka 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although not truely encyclopedia material, there are large entries on other internet curiosities (ASII art for example) and as this is a widely distributed image, I feel it's important to get the story behind it.

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.