Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday PawPet Show

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funday PawPet Show

Funday PawPet Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

No sources provided to indicate notability or any sources that show that is passes the web material guideline. This was previously nominated. brenneman 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No shown notibility as per WP:N. Not verifiable outside of itself. Has had 2 years to show media attention/notibility and hasn't.--Dacium 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: For one thing, (since brenneman brings up WP:WEB) WP:WEB says "Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." Since Funpaw Pawpet Show perform at conventions I'd say FPS isn't distributed solely via the net. --EarthFurst 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep! the dedication for keeping going for so long, with 100s of fans, They just as noteable as any tv/internet show! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.9.7 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

• KEEP THIS This show has been around for a while and with hundreds watching at time of broadcast and even more logging in to watch the replays of that weeks broadcast they are definately notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.166.77 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: This is one of the best-known recurring productions in the furry community, and it's a fixture at several conventions as well as on the web. I'll ask my friends in that community to see if we can't come up with some sources for notability. Jay Maynard 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "hundreds of people watching" is not notable. Many television shows have thousands of viewers as a regular audience, and yet are not considered notable. --TommyOliver 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Independent documentation of this program has been featured in the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, October 8, 2000. A scanned copy of this article can be found on FPS's own web site at: http://pawpet.tv/index.php?press and can be obtained independently by request at www.orlandosentinel.com It has also been recognized in the "Folkmanis Puppets in TV and Video" section of the Folkmanis manufacturing web site. Additionally, the program's self described 4 hour format coupled with its recent 320th show (1.28.2007) translates into a remarkable 1280+ hours of recorded program time. The cast has indicated on air that the bulk of this material has been archived and still exists. This would make FPS a program with more original air broadcast hours than the full run of most network television programs. Coupled with its interactive net-based chat function with its audience, and its documented licensing to legally use ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensed music (in itself a rarity among net-based broadcasts), I would strongly suggest retaining this article. --JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.190.35 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

• Re-write per 72.188.190.35 above. If there is a citeable newspaper article about the show, isn't this enough for notability? However, the article should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. Right now, it's just a laundry list of characters and subjects, no? -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, has an extremely low Alexa rank of 1,590,648. I would suggest that a single mention in a local newspaper six years ago is insufficient to demonstrate notability.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Re-write RE: Nydas' comment... Alexa rankings lower than 100,000 tend to be unreliable.[1] The clientele the show caters to tends to use browsers (Firefox and Safari especially) which do not support Alexa, further making the test questionable. The subject does pass a basic Google and USENET (particularly in alt.fan.furry) test, even with separated keywords. Article definitely needs cleanup of lists. Opened list discussion on Talk page. 70.168.242.19 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

1,360 Google hits [2] , of which 330 are unique, does not strike me as passing a Google test for Web content.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite Right now this article is only a collection of lists. It should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. --Evilboy 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Following the spirit of WP:N, the topic does have valid external citations, and is clearly not a vanity article. It should be tagged for cleanup as suggested by others, but having externally verifiable citations should satisfy the requirements of WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Oops, forgot to sign, sorry. However, I would also like to respectfully point out that the nominator's recent activity in WP:AFD suggests (and only suggests, mind) an overarching mindset against the so-called "Furry Fandom", to which this article could be considered a part of. Such a mindset is, by explicit description, not a valid reason to delete. I apologise to the nominator if this is not the case, but your contrib history this week certainly raises that as a valid concern. Arakunem 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite If this is a verifiable fact, then maintaining consistent production for over 6 years does seem to point to a level of notability. As was pointed out, it's not a level of popularity that is in question (so number of viewers isn't really an issue), but whether the article concerns something that would be considered notable. The above citations and information seem to point to notability. --ChaseT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.154.59.250 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

• Keep Needs cleanup, but 72.188.190.35's sources sufficiently address verifiability and notability. Shimeru 09:59, 1 February 2007 (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.