Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playbook (TV series)

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. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playbook (TV series)[edit]

[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)

Sports shows are less likely to get media attention. I could only find a few superficial mentions here and there. Deprodded.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 28 May 2022 (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?)} 16:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when I removed the PROD I included the following comment "PROD removed. There was one source listed, it was below the nav box which I have corrected". Saying "Deprodded without comment" is 100% incorrect. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep increasingly of the opinion that flawed AfDs should automatically be chucked out to prevent indiscriminate spamming of the AfD process. Artw (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with anything here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have dozens of deletions in flight, you can afford to withdraw the one that contains a false statement. Artw (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or I can amend the false statement to make it true. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that in and of itself is not a reason to close an AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a waste of the tens of seconds of effort you guys put in that would be. Anyway thank you for that minor concession to good faith, I guess it beats the baroque attempts to double down against all sense that some others would put in. Artw (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the rationale for starting this AfD as being false, here is another reference in the New Jersey Courier-Post [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bracy, Aaron (2005-12-01). "Plenty goes into the production of 'Playbook'". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The War Room is where most of the football work is done for Playbook, the lively X's and O's matchup show that airs five nights a week on the NFL Network. There are four viewing stations in a room that seems better suited for one or two. It's there that Playbook analysts Sterling Sharpe, Brian Baldinger, Butch Davis, Solomon Wilcots and Mike Mayock break down the game film to discuss on the show. At the center is Mark Chimielinski, whose title is technical football analyst but whose role is more like an analyst coach."
2. Rogers, Justin (2012-01-07). "NFL Network's 'Playbook' breaks down Detroit Lions-New Orleans Saint matchup". MLive.com. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "NFL Network show Playbook is described on the league's official site as "the ultimate football Xs and Os show, giving viewers the keys to victory for their favorite NFL team." On a recent edition of the show, the focus was squarely on the Saturday playoff matchups. The panel of Brian Baldinger, Sterling Sharpe, Joe Theismann and Brian Billick broke down several aspects of the Detroit Lions' upcoming game with the New Orleans Saints. Here's a brief recap of the show: ... Next up is an email segment, where a viewer asks how the Detroit Lions can attack Drew Brees. ... For what it's worth, the rest of the panel disagreed with Theismann's belief that Johnson will have a limited impact on Saturday."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Playbook to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:01, 29 May 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.