Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopkin Green Frog (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkin Green Frog[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources, recommend moving content to Encyclopedia Dramatica or some other meme hole Shii (tock) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough meme. All your base are belong to us, Badger badger badger and Goatse.cx also have articles, Hopkin Green Frog was nearly as widespread. XXX antiuser 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, much? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, described as a meme it has a news article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a book, and a few scholar hits too. Abductive (reasoning) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting, encyclopedic despite being minor. As I said in earlier AfDs, this is a work of dynamic modern art which deserves an article on Wikipedia. There are enough 3rd party reliable sources as well. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abductive. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you can WP:SNOWBALL this discussion Shii (tock) 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.