Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiba Inu Puppy Cam


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shiba Inu Puppy Cam

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In my opinion, this subject, while getting some trivial media coverage, has not demonstrated that it is of lasting significance; I am not convinced that Wikipedia needs an article about this web site. I suggest, if it still seems significant in one year's time, then would be the time to write about it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator.  It easily satisfies the WP:N and WP:Web notability criteria created for such things, with articles devoted entirely to the site published by Time, People, New York Newsday, etc.   Every day there are more articles in major publications.  1.2 million viewer-hours is a very significant viewership, on par with many feature films and other pieces of reality content.  We have decided as an encyclopedia to cover Internet memes - this argument is basically that we should not.  Understanding this kind of phenomenon is an important part of an encyclopedia treatment of modern popular culture.  Its popularity spans about a month now.  A year from now those sources will still be online, and presumably the puppies will be grown and the event over.  There is no one-year waiting period on Wikipedia, or prohibition against covering events of a limited duration.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Are the dates in the references section the dates of the articles or the dates they were viewed? Because it certainly makes it look like a one time event. And even though I accept that it got media coverage, I'm still struggling with what is notable. It seems like it could be merged into an article on web-cams. But as a stand alone topic it seems rather ummm absurd. But maybe that's just me. Will people want to look up this information and read about it and even if they do wouldn't it be cool to have it in the context of other web-cam events? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Webcam is about the technology, not the content. Adding a list of content produced with webcams would be akin to listing famous photographs in the camera article.  There are so many of them, starting with the Trojan Room coffee pot (considered the world's first webcam).  There is an article, List of Internet phenomena, that references a whole bunch of these, mostly with reference to child articles.  It would be impractical and contrary to our hyperlinked encyclopedia format, to adequately describe all of the notable webcams in the space of a single article.  Interestingly I could not find a category just for webcam content.  The webcam category lists types of devices.  There are a few categories where these appear, such asCategory:Internet memes.  I suppose some webcam content is famous because it becomes a viral phenomenon; others for other reasons (e.g. Justin.tv started as webcam reality entertainment.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for investigating. What you've said all makes sense. It's clear you understand my concern and my desire for stronger articles that are more comprehensive. In light of your convincing arguments, and as much as this seems a bit trivial (it's with great generosity I added the words "a bit") it passes the established notability threshold. Perhaps in the future it will be worked into a broader article dealing with its relative significance (or insignificance) as the case may be.


 * KeepChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Merge. I agree that this has gotten media coverage, but I struggle to see how it is truly notable.  I would think something would have to be live and culturally significant for more than just one month for it to be notable.  Content like this could be merged into List of Internet phenomena.  Linguist At Large  00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources already in article establish notability in the usual way. No reason to treat this as an exception. Wily D  00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- multiple independent sources, including Time and People, are a pretty clear indication of notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage on NBC Tonight and an upcoming feature in Entertainment Weekly are just two reliable sources covering this. Firmly established as a notable Internet phenomenon. Buspar (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Scrapes by through dedicated articles in national media outlets Time and NBC news, as well as the other more trivial coverage -Halo (talk) 06:23, 16 November 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.