Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puppy Channel


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Puppy Channel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN "cable channel" that appeared on only four local cable systems at its height (this fact, and which systems those were, are unconfirmed). Unsourced for years, and the largest coverage of the subject in reliable sources is a two-sentence bit in a HuffPo piece on ephemeral NN cable channels; that aside, the subject has a half-dozen fleeting namedrops of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. There's a surviving webpage, but Wikipedia still isn't a web host. The article was AfDed ten years ago, and survived on pure headcount of the threadbare Keep rationales so common back then: several Keep proponents proffered no grounds to keep at all, and those who did put forth telling arguments like "The nom must hate puppies," "Sooner or later someone will start one," "All small market cable channels are notable," "It's important" and the like. Unsurprisingly, the article's completely unimproved in the decade since the AfD. Fails the GNG and WP:ORG.   Ravenswing   00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – I wasn't sure on this one. It's certainly an unusual concept, and there seem to be a number of non-trivial instances of coverage in newspapers and the like that might add up to significant coverage, for example here (originally from the Oakland Tribune). But I turned up an article from Broadcasting & Cable in 2005 with references to previous media coverage, suggesting that the Puppy Channel never actually operated and indeed placing it somewhere not far short of a hoax. It's already of dubious notability either way and that tips the balance firmly into "delete" territory for me, since it renders the rest of the non-trivial coverage unreliable. — Nizolan  (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mm, good point: that the lack of any information about the local systems it allegedly was on casts doubt on the reliability of any of the coverage it might have received, if all they did was take the owner's word for it.   Ravenswing   02:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  04:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:00, 10 April 2016 (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.