Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only one source in the article seems to be secondary. Further searching, and translation of sources from French, revealed nothing better. Just a couple clickbait listicles about adult animation, some press releases, and some directory listings. Being just a series of Internet shorts hosted on one website, it seems not to have reached reliable source coverage territory. Last AFD closed (prematurely, IMO) as "Speedy keep" due to a myriad of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:SOURCESEXIST type comments, but as far as I can tell, no reliable sourcing has been presented. The only source actually presented in the last AFD was this, which after Google translation, yields less than a full sentence about the show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation,  and France. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ETA: Further assessment of the sources:
 * 1) This one seems to be sufficiently about the show.
 * 2) This one is about the animator and out of a myriad of paragraphs, dedicates only two lines to the show.
 * 3) Source 3 is just the animator's Kickstarter, a WP:PRIMARY source.
 * 4) Sources 4 and 5 are the show's own website.
 * 5) This is an interview with the animator in a Russian blog; i.e., another primary source.

In short, I think the sourcing is borderline at best and, unless someone finds something really major that I missed, I'm still leaning delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I tend to believe that articles should be kept whenever possible, I'm not sure about this one as a person who searched for sources myself and was unable to find much of value, for a very obscure show. Having said that, I don't think the article should be deleted, but rather any sourced content should be merged to Adult animation, where it would be more appropriate, and the article become a redirect to Adult animation. Additionally, the analysis on French Information and Communication Sciences Review should also be merged into the Adult animation section. I will say that I am willing to change my opinion on this topic in the course of this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * Keep During the previous AfD User:Firefangledfeathers found an academic paper about it: https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/8166 prompting the nominator (User:JayPlaysStuff) to withdraw the AfD with a SNOWBALL keep. So I find that convincing. CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is an academic paper a reliable source, though? Who wrote it? What cred do they have? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * According to a translated version of the article (if that doesn't work, just throw the artcicle in Google Translate) it says: "Aurélie Petit is a doctoral student in Film Studies at Concordia University in Montreal, under the supervision of Marc Steinberg." More about Petit here, here, and here. Historyday01 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, academic papers are reliable sources. This is a paper written by doctoral student in film studies at Concordia University and published in SFSIC and hosted at Centre pour l'Édition Électronique Ouverte. I would consider this as top tier for reliability.
 * As per the link I shared, it was written by Aurélie Petit, who is "a doctoral student in Film Studies at Concordia University"
 * I think the credibility of a doctoral student in film studies, who published an academic paper on this is self evident.
 * Which part of this did you have doubts about? CT55555 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The part that says "student". They're not a professional writer or authority figure on the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure about that. I'd argue that they have enough authority to include as a source. 173.64.72.34 (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "student" being prefaced by the word "doctoral" is significant.
 * Either way, it's published
 * Thirdly, The WP:SCHOLARSHIP section called Dissertations will give you guidance on the reliability of PhD student's work that is published under supervision (as this is) CT55555 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good points on all counts. It is definitely a reliable source. 173.64.72.34 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the journal article, the only thing that matters is whether it's academic, peer-reviewed, etc. Even if they're an undergrad, if they get published in a "real" journal it's a real publication. But here we have one of these, and that's really it. As far as I'm concerned this does not pass--so delete, but I say this fully aware of the fact that in some topic areas two websites are deemed enough. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you said that. Reliably published, peer-reviewed scholarly papers are the gold standard for referencing an encyclopaedia, not something to be viewed with suspicion. SpinningSpark 13:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, exactly. I can't believe that either. Considering that the page itself garners hundreds of views every day, it makes sense to have content about the series, whether through keeping the existing page or merging and redirecting as I've proposed here. Historyday01 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: in the first AfD my friend User:Dennis Brown found this, and that seems like a pretty decent source to me--but that's two, then. Dennis, I pinged you so you can vote keep, haha. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok. Would you support merging the sourced content into the Adult animation section? I think this animated series is at least worth mentioning there, even if very briefly Historyday01 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect: This page is not as strong as it could be, but I think there is enough value to merge specific content to an appropriate page. 173.64.72.34 (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * keep for the same reasons as the last AFD. There are sources which demonstrate it passes WP:GNG, the gold standard for notability.  Wikipedia isn't censored.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , as GNG is passed. The academic source is reliable, in-depth, significant coverage. can you please strike {{tqd|"only source actually presented in the last AFD" from your OP? {{pb}}Here's another écranlarge source with more coverage of the show. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.