Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Happy Bunny

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. Bearian 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Happy Bunny

Nom - not notable, self sourced, primarily spam. Rklawton 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I've seen this fad on posters, etc, and I'm far from the target audience. It does badly need sourcing, though. Some assertion of notability of creator's page, awards that could be confirmed. Edward321 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's certainly a well-known product, but barely passes WP:N. A quick google search found some legitimate articles including some stuff on a project between Happy Bunny and Partnership for a Drug-free America. Needs a lot of work to meet standards, but I suspect it could become a acceptable article.Blcfilm 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*I will not !vote right now, but if there are no reliable sources provided, then I will !vote for deletion. Corvus cornix 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a citation for the award-winning Happy Bunny campaign against drugs, and a quote from the Wall Street Journal (which is behind a paywall) that's from their website. Not the strongest third-party evidence I've ever provided, but I am prejudiced because I'm looking at the It's Happy Bunny 2007 calendar over my desk. Yeah, I know, "I like it" is a lousy reason. I'd welcome other cites and will try and find some. Accounting4Taste 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Found and added three more cites from arm's-length third party sources -- fairly reputable business-oriented ones. (No blogs.) Accounting4Taste 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the press coverage now cited by those above is sufficient to pass WP:N and WP:V. I have also added a ref from The San Diego Union-Tribune here. --TreeKittens 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see these things all over the place Roadrunner 16:53, 8 October 2007 (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.