Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday pawpet show

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funday pawpet show

This doesn't appear to be notable, and I doubt it will become encyclpaedic. →Iñgōlemo← ^{(talk) 06:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)}

• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Inter 09:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've never heard of it, but it gets more than reasonable results on Google and Google Groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Notes after a few minutes of research, I've found that it's been around for more than 5 years, and has done lots of paid live performances, which puts it well beyond most VfD candidates (teen garage bands, etc) as far as notability goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Well, if Starblind's research is correct, they're worthy to be included: keep and cleanup. Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Starblind seems to be right. Alarm 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Marcus22 20:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Improve it. non-encyclopaedic --Neigel von Teighen 20:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google does indicate that this is notable, surprisingly enough. (!) GRider\^talk 19:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.