Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoze Houndz

Hoze Houndz

[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)

Tagged for additional citations needed since 2014 with no improvement. Sources are a production company's website, IMDB, and a WP:USERGENERATED site. WP:BEFORE discloses no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No evidence this passes GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention found in Google, passing mentions in the Canadian Screen Guide in GBooks. Delete as no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 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) 03:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having seen the articles referred to by Nfitz from National Post and Montreal Gazette, my assessment has not changed. Both articles are about Don Cherry and Ron MacLean, not about this program. They do not contribute to significant coverage about the show. Attempting to impute notability from these articles to this program is a class case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:INHERITED does say "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group" - but I'm not clear what the class (or group) is in this case. Nfitz (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: that essay provides a definition: Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. The articles you link are neither about Hoze Hounds but rather about the animated appearance of two legendary Canadian media personalities on the show. Using those articles as evidence of significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources is not actually useful. It is significant coverage of Cherry and MacLean, not the show. The show is "...associated with some other, legitimately notable..." persons by these articles, but not legitimately notable itself. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]