Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopkin green frog

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (14 delete, 6 keep, 1 new user, and 2 votes by anons) --Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hopkin green frog
Little evidence that this "internet phenomenon" was anything of the sort; it was just a blogger in-joke. ~6000 google hits, yes, but that's very little for a "phenomenon" that has absolutely no existence outside of a bunch of blogs. CDC  (talk)  01:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete amusing thing that never made it out of the blogs. The google hits go blogblogforumblogblogblogblogforum etc. -Splash 01:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Thunderbrand 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Funny, but not notable. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  02:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - a bunch of junk.--GrandCru 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete even though I edited and expanded this awhile back, oddly enough. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 03:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep* yes but an in joke among bloggers means that alot of people are in on it, also some very large popular blogs such as Boing Boing have covered the story already, and a google search for "hopkin green frog" turns up 9,860 hits JCS 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why does it have to have "made it out of blogs"? It was clearly "noted" so it's "notable" enough for us to note that it was noted. Grace Note 04:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable Internet phenomenon.  Wikipedia importance policy: "there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject."  The fact that this (like most) memes was spread through blogs and forums is irrelevant.-- Norvy (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN, and since when is Importance policy? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Since never.  -- Norvy (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable net phenomenon. Dcarrano 13:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, its 15 minutes are over. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, under the condition of cleanup. // Gargaj 18:45, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Binadot 02:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Here we go again.  A few people on the internet make something about nothing and then think it was important. Indrian 19:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irredemiably non-notable. An infinitely more encyclopedic subject would be an investigation of why anyone would want to keep this pointless article. Quale 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very popular and widley known GSwarthout 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) &mdash; (Improperly signed comment actually by 63.164.233.127; user's 1st edit.)
 * Keep. For a AYB-sized listing of people helping him "found his frog," visit http://lostfrog.org .  And that AYB-size makes it notable.  Almafeta 03:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I looking for article, it name be "Hopkin green frog." Someone deleted my article. I'll find my article. Who deleted my article!? Kuralyov 04:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't say I understand WP's deletion policy; on one hand, this AYB-scale phenomenon, which has given rise to various still-used catchphrases and cultural references online, is suggested for deletion, while on the other hand obvious vanity pages like Scott Fisher (who?) remain untouched. Jmason 19:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote is Jmason's ninth edit --Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's because no-one has gotten around to nominating Scott Fisher for deletion yet. Feel free to, however! -Splash 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else can I learn where this stuff comes from if the internet's primary authoritive source for such things doesn't keep track of it? Ren Hoek 16:50, 2 August 2005 (CET)
 * Vote actually cast by 213.84.79.181 --Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.