Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peppermint Park (TV series) (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 no consensus. Again. This renomination was reasonable, but I suggest letting some time pass until the third one. Sandstein 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Park (TV series)

[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)

This show has been acknowledged by Cracked and Screen Rant, but this does not seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Newspapers.com and Google Books yielded no results. The other sources are TV publications that only give directory listings as well, along with a blog that does not seem to be an RS. Prod declined. Last AFD was open for three weeks with zero participation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Protest: What? I find it baffling that Ten Pound Hammer says there was "zero participation" when I participated and voted keep, as well as an on-the-fence comment from IJBall. The previous AFD was closed just hours ago by Sandstein as "no consensus". I know that TPH didn't agree that the sources that I found accounted for notability, but immediately reopening the AfD and describing my input as "zero participation" seems insincere and inappropriate. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus after three weeks, so I invoked WP:NPASR. I meant "no participation" in the sense of "not enough to obtain a consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing really is marginal at best. It doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage. If two more good sources could be found, I would change my mind. But I couldn't find anything additional in my search. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we're going to start deleting articles on subjects that well-established sites like Screen Rant and especially Cracked.com include in "top #"-type lists, let alone one that apparently influenced a definitely-notable TV show, we'd have to delete a sizeable portion of Wikipedia out of "fairness". I'm well aware that citations of this type don't really qualify as significant coverage. But that isn't the only way to demonstrate notability – just the main one.

The aforementioned mentions clearly demonstrate an awareness of the show among the general public, and a TV series that has left a mark in the public consciousness should have a Wikipedia article even if in-depth reviews are scarce. Strict notability guidelines are first and foremost made to enforce Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. A broadcast TV series requires an entire professional team to make, so it can hardly fall under that. As such, we do not need to be overly zealous in this area, and ought to err on the side of including information that benefits readers, and that they expect to find here.

Also, I would like to recommend a procedural speedy close. Re-nominating a page immediately like this is inappropriate in all cases, even when WP:NPASR applies ("speedy" does not mean "right away", particularly given that potential closers have WP:RELIST available to them). But it does not actually apply in this case – the close was "no consensus", not "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination". If there was disagreement over that close, it should have been discussed with the closer, and if necessary taken to WP:DRV. In addition, the previous participants should have been pinged for this discussion by the nominator to avoid bias. Modernponderer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: You're still missing the point. There are no secondary sources besides Screen Rant and Cracked, and you're clearly asking to WP:IAR by arguing that it's notable because people have heard of it in a memetic sense. That's not how notability works here. Also, @Sandstein: has already stated that a speedy renomination was acceptable because the last one generated insufficient discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TenPoundHammer: There are also two separate interviews cited in the article, both of which confirm the direct influence of this show on a later, definitely notable TV series. Interviews may contribute to notability, as Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 64#Interviews are not independent sources, and cannot be used to satisfy the WP:GNG was inconclusive.

But besides that, yes I am invoking WP:IAR to an extent. However, IAR is fundamental policy for a reason, so please do not dismiss it out of hand but instead consider my argument on its merits. Fundamentally, I am arguing that the drawbacks for Wikipedia readers of a strict reading of notability policies for this particular class of article – where it is "on the bubble" in that there is reliably sourced information, just not a lot of the "correct" type – are very large, and the benefits very small.

(I probably should have checked User:Sandstein's talk page in case there was a discussion exactly like that. But I have to say I do not understand the reasoning. The previous discussion was already relisted twice – the usual maximum. Should these debates be allowed to continue indefinitely unless a desired result is reached?) Modernponderer (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: If a discussion is closed as "no consensus", then it can be acceptable to open a new discussion to determine a consensus. Usually it's preferable to wait, but at least this time I got some discussion (if not the kind I was looking for). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I don't understand why you're still representing the discussion that I had with you as not existing. To echo Modernponderer's comment, it feels like you want to pretend the previous discussion never happened, so that you can start over as many times as you like until you get the desired result. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am doing. The previous discussion was relisted twice and gathered no comments beside your own, meaning there was not enough participation for a consensus. I'm looking to gather more discussion from other individuals in hopes of finding a consensus, though I have no problem with you continuing to comment here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there were comments besides my own, I wasn't the only person participating. It's now several times that you've said "no comments" and "zero discussion" when what you mean is either "not enough discussion" or "not enough people agreeing with me". -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: would you like to weigh in here? It seems that people are confusing "I've heard of it" with our notability guidelines and not giving factual defenses, just claiming "oh, it was memorable enough to be on a listicle, therefore it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, I wrote at User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/January#Reopening AfD process: "Because the AfD I closed generated little discussion, I think that starting another one is not a problem." Sandstein 09:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or procedural keep for recent AfD). I've read all of the above and the previous AfD (i.e. no need to attempt to change my opinion), and I agree with the "notability" of this subject stems from what an awful failure it was arguments. It's somewhat in the public memory for its creepiness factor (despite being over 30 years old, it appears to be a thing on youtube), and that alone can be covered in the article, despite the inavailability of non-trivial production info. It's still a borderline case though, hence my weak !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:22, 27 January 2020 (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.