Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drawball

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 of the debate was No consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drawball

Blazing exciting new trails in non-notability, prod tag removed without comment, article itself is also severely lacking. Objectivist-C 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Bad nomination, obviously notable. Loom91 08:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is the notabilty? Anything
  WP:WEB-ish? Alexa rank 85,143 which is unexciting, article claims two million daily hits which seems to have happened on a few days but now dropped to tenth of that. Weregerbil 09:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean Up. This site should be mentioned, but needs to be fixed into something more than a promotion board for Drawball projects. --Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strictly interpreted,
  Whatpulse before they get a New York Times article, not afterwards. Drawball's become a popular site and a connection between different online communities. The danger of the article is that it will become more about the communities than the site itself, but I believe the issues are ones of managing the content rather than deleting it.--BigCow 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I think it should be cleaned-up rather than deleted. It (the attack against Korea, which is probably the main reason it is on here, contrary to misleading promotion that shouldn't take up such a large porportion) was a major internet event that involved many major website participants who all have their own articles on Wikipedia. In addition to the well-known event, groups involved in massive creations on the site (such as ebaumsworld and worth1000) are big enough to have their own article. If not big enough in hits, it is at least a major culmination point of the Internet and significant to internet culture. If this article must be deleted, however, I strongly suggest that the major Korean flag incident remain; as a stub article or as part of another article involving internet issues and culture, etc. --Dch111 23:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Removing everything trivial would bring this down to a sentence or two, and what's left would still fail WP:WEB, as well as being unreferenced and unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (used to be comment)I disagree with it failing WP:WEB, as per BigCow, but as for it being unverifiable, are you saying it cannot be proven to exist? (The events can be proved through screen shots and links) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dch111 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Compared to the other articles nominated for deletion, this has much more valuable content, and is a great reference page for the site's history and information, which exists nowhere else on the web. I second BigCow's argument that Wikipedia provides a plethora of information not available yet through huge media sources. Drawball is becoming (if it hasn't already become) a significant point in internet culture. If it is deleted and soon after receives recognition through a notable source, what then? Is the article revived or rebuilt from scratch? We will have already lost the prior content on the drawball article. Don't delete. If anything, simply clean up and add more objective content. Chigz 10:50, 7 May 2006. (UTC)

• Comment This is the user's first edit. -Objectivist-C 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Second edit actually, their first edit appeared to be on May 4th.--BigCow 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did I do something wrong? Chigz 14:04, 8 May 2006

• Comment Not at all, don't worry about it. In discussions like this one, which are more about "consensus" than taking a poll, people are occasionally accused of trying to stuff ballots or bring in outside help to vote on a topic.
  Sock puppetry is what people call it, and people sometimes list how many edits a user has to suggest a "weight" to their vote or if they just signed up to vote. You're more than welcome to participate, and you were an editor before this vote even took place, people are just wary of ballot-stuffing.--BigCow 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Ah, thank you. See, I'm not so much an editor as a user. I use Wikipedia daily for its information; I have done no editing up to this point (as is most obvious by my lack of knowledge on editing properly). I just felt that I should interject where an article that I make use of is being questioned for deletion. Thanks again, though, for clearing that up. Chigz 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please the drawball is a interesting and verifiable subject we should cover Yuckfoo 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above KeithV 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete immediatre Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre! Kim Jong Il 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-???--Dch111 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep very notable site...  ALKIVAR™ 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, had 15 minutes of if-not-fame-then-something-like-it but failed to become a notable Internet meme in any respect. Fails
  original research. Sorry guys, but this site just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 16:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep And by the way, is a third-party verification really necessary for hits per day? --
  Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 18:21, 9 May 2006 (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.