Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday PawPet Show (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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Funday PawPet Show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable online streaming program. Delete. Looking at the last AFD, yes, I see it was covered in two articles by local news sources. Two articles total for a show running nearly ten years is not a demonstration of notability, by my standards. It's a footnote; just about every local public access show can manage that much press. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Way back in ye olden days of January 2005, I voted to keep it, but that was well before we had developed our current strong notability and verifiability policies. I just can't see us keeping this with our current standards.  The "weak" is for nostalgia value. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree that more verifiable sources would be nice, it's a pity if this has to go - it's an interesting piece of web history, and by no means fading away. As noted in the article, it raised over $10,000 support in a recent telethon - about as much as the larger furry conventions raise for charity. GreenReaper (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. We _do_ have the "Orlando Sentinel" reference - this article will have to stand or fall on that.  Very notable within the fandom, but - as with everything within any fandom - not a great deal of real-world impact.  However, not a _zero_ real world impact - let's see how it goes. Tevildo (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - "Two articles total for a show running nearly ten years is not a demonstration of notability, by my standards. - it is by mine. News coverage isn't diluted by how long the show has been going, and notability is not temporary. Torc2 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was featured in the Orlando Sentinel and something else, evidently; the Sentinel covering it is more than just a footnote.  Passes WP:N, but barely. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't the most notable thing in the universe, but it is notable enough and meets our standards for verifiability.  RFerreira (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (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.