Talk:Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special

Not an episode
I disagree that this is an "episode" of Pee-wee's Playhouse. It is a Christmas special akin to Garfield Christmas. Plus, it was nominated for 3 Emmys. -143.43.204.21 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section
Please ensure that additions to the Trivia section pertain to this article, the Christmas Special. If you have bits of trivia about particular characters, please add that trivia to the respective character articles. -Seinfreak37 14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Establishing notability
If someone actually has an interest in improving this article instead of trying to make a point, you'll need to find creation information from DVD commentary, interviews, guide books, or whatever may be available, and reception information from reviews. If none of those exist, this cannot have an article. For those confused about why this is being redirected while it has info dealing with awards, they do not provide enough content for an article, as they can be covered elsewhere. TTN (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Three Emmy's is a huge haul of Nominations. There surely must be more information out there on this than just the one review. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN, if you actually made an effort at merging the information in this article into the Lists of.... article you would find life much easier. In my opinion just the list of guest stars and the performances establishes notability. Catchpole (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TTN, part of the problem here is that most of the coverage on this (as you might expect for a show first aired nearly twenty years ago) is likely to be from 1988-1989, and not all of that material is online or easily searchable, despite Google News Archive search making things a bit better. Furthermore, what is online tends to be in paid archives, so people will need to get Lexis-Nexis or some other access to verify the full content of the articles in question.  However, I did find some abstracts which look promising: Dallas Morning News, Wichita Eagle, Miami Herald, to list a few from my trawling of Google News.


 * There's also coverage out there related to the Adult Swim re-airing and DVD re-releases. A lot of the DVD coverage involves smaller mentions in lists of re-releases, of course, but there's a significant enough volume out there to indicate that the re-release was well-received.  Here is a review in Entertainment Weekly, for instance. JavaTenor (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem faced here is that WP:RS requires that you find sources that have a "direct and detailed" examination of the topic. WP:NOT requires that the article not be primarily a plot summary. That means that you have to find something that will permit you to write, say 16 paragraphs of information about the show to outbalance the "Plot Summary" and "Running Gags" sections. That just isn't going to happen ... even for a recent show that would be hard, and for an older one, it's impossible. If you trim back the plot summary to be a third of the size of your other information, you would have to be a third the size of "The show was nominated for three Emmy awards". That would give you three words ... not much of a summary.


 * Or, you could do it the sane way, and add it back to the list of Pee-Wee Herman episodes and put a note about the Emmy Awards. It does not matter why you cannot find sources, all that matters is that you cannot find sources. This article needs to become a redirect again.Kww (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, my point was that I did find sources (the best of which will require me to make either a trip to a library or to WP:WRE, as they're in newspaper archives), because this particular instance is quite clearly a notable production (as well as a notable DVD re-release, given mentions in Entertainment Weekly, the New York Times, etc.); I was simply attempting to explain why it can be difficult in general to find sources rapidly for television programs of this vintage. Your opinion in favor of a redirect is certainly noted, however, and it would be worth having a broader discussion among editors who didn't take part in the recent edit war.  JavaTenor (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dallas Morning News is certainly a source, but probably for nothing more than a blurb on critical reception. Wichita Eagle and Miami Herald do not meet the "direct and detailed examination" criterion. Looking over the Google News archive, I don't see any more candidates that look likely to have a direct and detailed examination of the material. You shouldn't be dismissive of my opinion just because I tried to keep a valid redirect in place. Given the current state of the article, a redirect is the only sensible treatment. If you want it to not be a redirect, it is your task to find a group of reliable sources that give a direct and detailed examination of this Christmas special and provide you with information that does not fall into the category of "plot summary." I don't hold out much hope.Kww (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I came across as dismissive - it was pretty late at night here, so I may have been more curt than I intended.    Yours is an entirely rational opinion, and worthy of consideration, and if the sourcing doesn't pan out as I believe it will, there's certainly nothing wrong with retaining the article as a redirect (although the merge target should really incorporate more information from this article, including Emmy nominations and guest stars, which are both relevant to notability).  Given that this particular article appears to be more contentious than the "normal" Pee-Wee's Playhouse episodes (as it's something of a special case, having aired separately and been released to DVD separately, along with the individual Emmy nominations and the extensive list of guest stars), it might be worth bringing in more commentary via an Articles for Deletion discussion or a Requests for Comment once protection expires.  JavaTenor (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can type out an good reception section, that'll be enough, though the sources provided so far don't really seem to form one. The Emmies on their own cannot hold an article because they can be included in a section of the main article or the episode list. The guest stars be be included at the end of the summary if necessary. TTN (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)