Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoodleBug


 * 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. Proto :: ►  00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DoodleBug


Speedy deleted as advertising, also does not assert notability. The creator of the page objects, so I have restored it and listed it here. – Gurch 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to provide some statistics for the site:
 * Delete: The article, per Gurch, is obviously an ad. Get it out of my sight. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We didn't intend for it to look like an ad. It's not like anything on that site makes any money. Also, one of the requirements is that the "references" are not cited. Can this be clarified? It's not like I'm quoting anything, except for the rules section. - Jaden Green 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Whpq 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to V-1 flying bomb. Readro 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Readro. This article is trash. Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have a bit of a bone to pick. How come everyone's ranting about how this article is trash and advertising, but iSketch gets to keep their Wiki entry? We're a lot alike. - Jaden Green 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-Speedy Delete per WP:CSD --NMChico24 04:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Argument for Non-Deletion

1. Searching Google ("Doodlebug") returns a number 2 result as seen here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Doodlebug

2. Searching Yahoo ("Doodlebug") returns a number 1 result as seen here: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Doodlebug&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

3. Searching Ask ("Doodlebug") returns a number 4 result as seen here: http://www.ask.com/web?q=Doodlebug&qsrc=0&o=333&l=dir&sugreqs=4

4. Users can be found in almost every continent across the globe as seen here: http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/stuff/map/

5. Alexa traffic Rankings can be found here (Alexa lists doodle bug with a ranking of 86,407): http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/photos/images/eckitis-06720bfe90a765f6cb2d652157affd70.jpg

6. The website can appear to plain if you do not have an account, here is a screenshot to show the website: http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/photos/images/eckitis-28f3ffec26fb2da68d9c59f0e7661a11.jpg

7. There are 459 members that have been active in the past 30 days (from today's date 12/1/2006), of those 459 members 122 of them were active in the past 24 hours and 271 have been active in the past week. This information can be found here: http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/members/index.asp?online=30&s=&submit=submit

8. The websites created by the owner of this site has been featured in the following:

• plime.com • FARK.com • RealTechNews.com • Metafilter.com • DailyCandy.com • Times Newspaper • Bliss Magazine • FHM UK 3/2006 • Revolution Magazine • G4TV (attack of the show "Gems of the Internet") 9. Stats of the site in the passed 24 hours are as follows: Doodles added: 25, Votes cast: 2,072, Messages posted: 902

10. Samples of the artwork created can be found here: http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-12%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=doodlebug+_doodles

I think the number one question most of our members have is that Wikipedia has several websites listed in its database that are very similar to ours, for example:

Worth1000 Isketch 10eastern

Even though they are similar in the "creation of art" Doodlebug is very much one of a kind, I have yet to locate a site that mimics it. If you could clarify how our entry differs from the relevence of the other entries we would be glad to make any nessecary changes.

Sincerely, Eckitis Sabrina

* Keep - Per meeting WP:WEB in references noted above. Delete - Per below. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - what references? The way I read it, there is no independent articles published about the Doodlebug site.  What is provided is a list of publications that have written about other sites that that the owner of doodlebug has created.  I do not see a simple statement that all thee sites have written about Doodlebug. -- Whpq 13:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As per your claification here are references directed specifically toward DoodleBug:

1. Yahoo The Nine: http://9.yahoo.com/2006/07/24 2. Plime: http://www.plime.com/search.p?pid=29&tag=Doodlebug Eckitis - Sabrina


 * There are still no independent sources in the article - and the appropriate place to put independent references is in the article, not here! Without anything new being added in the sourcing department, redirect to the Doodlebug disambiguation page. B.Wind 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the afformentioned links to the article, moments after adding them here. These links are listed under Press. (Added to Reference too. Should I be adding them elsewhere?
 * Comment - I find those two references to be unconvincing. The Yahoo reference is a daily web-cast which picks out 9 web sites each day for user voting, which is very light coverage.  Plime simply has a a doodle that somebody on the web submitted. -- Whpq 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Plime reference says "A doodle from the great doodleBug site. picked by thecritters 2 months ago". "thecritters" appears to be the DoodleBug Critters (same doodle character) who says DoodleBug is his/her website. The Plime reference also says "Plime is a pliable tree of interesting links, cultivated and pruned by everyone", and http://www.plime.com/ has a "Submit a link". It looks like a selfpublished reference to me. PrimeHunter 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete —  per nom. Wizardman  20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:24, 8 December 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.