Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppy-throwing Marine viral video

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy-throwing Marine viral video[edit]

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

This is a clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, as all coverage simply covered it as it happens and that's it. Only other things were passing mentions in books that don't cover this event in a lasting point of view. Beerest355 Talk 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEVENT (I think this is the appropriate one?). Ansh666 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEVENT failure; thing happened, perps get fired, life goes on. Nothing more than that and all coverage was confined to the days after the event. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 11:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two reasonably reliable books mentioning the episode well after the original news flurry, analyzing it in a broader context. This makes it meet WP:NEVENT: it received widespread coverage (at the moment of the event) and also subsequent analysis and discussion. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's this one and this one, right? IMO, both give just a passing mention, so it's really borderline. Ansh666 23:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's enough to show it's used as a prominent example, and that it is remembered well after the news flurry. The news and the passing mentions alone wouldn't be enough, but together they strengthen each other, IMHO. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two sources found by Cyclopia are really, really slight mentions, and I don't feel comfortable saying that this passes WP:NEVENT just based on those two sources; otherwise, there is no real lasting repercussions to this event.--TKK ^{bark !} 12:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting or broader significance of what was a distasteful but minor incident. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2013 (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.