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. Sandstein 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Peppermint Park (TV series)

Peppermint Park (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment – I have mixed feelings about this one. It has received some coverage in at least two secondary sources, according to the article's own references, indicating some level of notability, but the other refs at the article are all primary sources that don't count towards notability. The missing part of the picture is whether it got any media/press coverage at the time of its release in the 1980s – my suspicion is that might have (i.e. WP:NEXIST), but probably not much... My feeling here is that this is probably just barely notable, but it would be preferred if one or two more secondary sources for this could be found to "clinch" it... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think the "notability" of this subject stems from what an awful failure it was. In addition to the mentions on Cracked and Screen Rant, there's a page on TV Tropes and some YouTube videos dedicated to mocking the series. This kind of thing isn't usually considered significant coverage in reliable sources, but for this kind of topic, I think it indicates that there's legitimate public interest in this topic. At least all of the mentions of it are independent of the source -- the company that produced Peppermint Park is long gone, and the page wasn't written to advertise the series. I think it bends notability slightly but doesn't come close to breaking it. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Toughpigs: Having a TV Tropes page is not an assertation of notability. "Legitimate public interest" is not the same thing as Wikipedia-level notability, and this doesn't seem to pass it. Cracked and Screen Rant are literally the only coverage forms that are anywhere close to reliable, and I see no reason to invoke WP:IAR just because you think it's of interest to someone. All rare media is of interest to someone. Does that mean everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TenPoundHammer: Well, notability is defined as " worthy of notice", and I think demonstrating "legitimate public interest" plays a role in that.

I looked on newspapers.com, and I found a couple mentions, which I acknowledge are very marginal:

• Jordan Valley Sentinel (Murray, UT), Jan 14 1988, "Consumer Electronics Show: The Latest of Everything and Then Some": "E.J. Levine and the gang from Unicorn Video were there as were the people from the Peppermint Park video series which is a marvelous series for teaching preschoolers from Mark V Productions."
• West Valley View (Salt Lake City, UT), Dec 17 1987, "Home on the Video Scene Dept.": "If you have preschoolers at home you can turn your VCR into a very pleasant learning tool with the Peppermint Park series of educational tapes which feature live action characters in various settings."

Looking at Lost Media Wiki, quite a bit of the articles featured there do have Wikipedia pages -- the current featured articles on the home page are Getting Together, Hortensius, Boone, the original version of The Good Dinosaur, Star-ving and a computer game called Big Brother that Wikipedia doesn't cover. I don't know if everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here -- I hadn't heard of it until I was looking up Peppermint Park yesterday -- but if that's meant to be a slippery slope argument then it doesn't scare me, particularly. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: The two articles you cited are both trivial mentions and not enough for notability. "But other stuff has Wikipedia articles too" is not a valid reason to keep this one. Have you found any reliable coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TenPoundHammer: I have not. Just Cracked and Screen Rant, and (to the extent that it matters) TV Tropes. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Then that is not reliable source coverage, and therefore not notability. If you can't find anything, then it must not be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 00:04, 8 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.