Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dramatic Prairie Dog


 * 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 given the WP:RS concerns raised here. Nothing given that shows notability per WP:WEB. --Core desat 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic Prairie Dog

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable online video. Current Alexa rank 355,001; best one between 30.000 and 40.000 - the graph of its rank and traffic seems to indicate that it's just a temporary fad. Delete, with a brief mention at internet meme at best. - Mike Rosoft 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability Corpx 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is nonsense. I don't even understand the popularity of this stupid video.  It certainly isn't notable.  Corvus cornix 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and wait for reliable sources to catch up. I think this may become notable, i.e. achieve significant coverage in reliable sources, in a few months, similar to craze over the Numa Numa dance/video, but notability in the future, even if likely, is not notability now. Has a massive web presence: 400,000+ web hits under correct name, and over 2 million under more popular misnomer, "dramatic chipmunk". Alexa rank doesn't tell the story at all because its main agar dishes are youtube and collegehumor, not the eponymous website. I was emailed the link a few days ago and personally find it hysterical—especially the Kill Bill and Darth Vader takeoffs. Some minor news hits for both names but some of them are blogs and none appear to provide significant coverage.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I'm a stickler for wikipedia format, and i can see this as questionable, but the meme is HUGE, and i came to wikipedia several times, hoping to find information about it.  I had to finally find out where it came from (japanese tv) by other means.  There are compelling arguments to be made for deletion, so maybe just a redirect to "internet meme," but i think the redirect should go to specific mention of this meme, so that the encyclopedia is still useful.Youdontsmellbad 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you link to some of the places you found out about this ? Corpx 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This article has no REAL references, and is irrelevant. If you want to make it relevant, how about you get some info on whoever created this clip, the original clip from Japanese television, and so on.  We need more info if you really want to keep it. Until then, delete this article. --Conman33 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete --200.104.124.16 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote! Corpx 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP isn't a repository for passing fads. Barryap 01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete This video is everywhere. It was on Best Week Ever, it's got tons of views and remixes. Companies sell items with the "chipmunk"'s likeness on them. This is easily popular enough to warrant an article.► Chris Nelson  08:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTE, a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources" for it to be notable. One "coverage item" doesnt imply significant coverage and I have my doubts on the using Best Week Ever as a reliable source Corpx 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you're wrong about that last part. So at least that's out of the way.► Chris Nelson  09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, because I recall seeing this making national news on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC this month in I believe the "Oddball" segment. It has had enough still ongoing references to make an article useful for anyone wanting to see what it was all about, and again, made at least national news and what with the internet has probably and even larger influence internationally.  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but "I recall, I believe" is not a valid reference. Corvus cornix 17:01, 10 July 2007 (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.