Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon Park

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Park

[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)

There isn't enough third party coverage about this topic and it does not meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV. A few trivial mentions at best, and certainly not enough to support a stand-alone article. Jontesta (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to existing coverage, it is covered in two scholarly works (Ott, Brian L. "‘Oh My God, They Digitized Kenny!." Prime Time Animation: Television (2013).) here, and (Jones, Mark. "Tentacles and Teeth: The Lovecraftian Being in Popular Culture." In New Critical Essays on HP Lovecraft, pp. 227-247. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2013.) here. It's a pretty niche thing, but clearly exists, and received appropriate critical commentary. Merging to either South Park or Babylon 5 article space would be problematic, as we would have to decide which element of the crossover was primary. Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, I'll note that actual parks named "Babylon Park" unrelated to either South Park or Babylon 5 clearly exist, and make searching for coverage more difficult) Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage by secondary sources which exist in the article and those listed by Jclemens, as well as a few more sources may not be very long, but is not trivial and enough to support a short, non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage found by Jclemens as well as their overall argument. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2022 (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.