Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoze Houndz (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. Views to retain the page carry more weight than those to delete or redirect, not to mention being more numerous. Owen× ☎ 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoze Houndz

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel#Animated_series_7 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I pointed out last time, there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article (National Post) is a hype piece centered on the 2 broadcasters that guest starred in an episode. It is not a review or indepth coverage of the show itself. Second article is just the same article, but more complete (as you stated). I don't think either support notability for the show. The article might be useful in the pages for the 2 broadcasters, but I feel it does nothing for an article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article contains six footnotes, which is more than enough to establish passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six sources, same as last AfD. Not a slam dunk, but they at least confirm GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment....I concur with Donaldd23 and share his concern....six footnotes, yes, some from reliable media...but none of them seems to be focusing on the series except one (and only to mention it broadcast in Spain, which is significant but is it enough?)! One (Ottawa Citizen) is even an article from ...September 1998 (when the series premiered in October 1999....). (The article in The Record Kitchener is also dated from one month before 1st broadcast....) The Gulf News article just mentions the name of the series....And this cruel lack of content clearly shows in the article itself. And if the page cannot be expanded, a redirect is a better outcome....since when is the number of footnotes considered enough?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.