Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Hill (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Peggy Hill
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional Character that fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. WP:BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe summaries and the article currently contains zero secondary sources. The article is 99% WP:OR. If I were to attempt cleanup to remove unverified text, I would wind up blanking the article, resulting in nothing but my being reverted and warned. Per WP:BURDEN, those who wish to keep unverified text or claims are responsible for providing the sources. En♟ Passant♙ 22:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - The current article should definitely be rewritten to be more than primary-sourced plot summary, but just a quick look brings up quite a bit of coverage on Peggy that goes into actual analysis beyond just plot. Just a cursory search on my part already brought up things like this article from Paste (magazine) about her, this book analyzing TV mothers that has a lengthy section on her, this book on the portrayal of teachers on TV that discusses her, and this paper from Fireweed (periodical) that has about a paragraph on her while discussing the wider context of the show.  The current article definitely fails WP:PLOT and needs to be rewritten, but Peggy Hill as a character passes the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * She is notable, but the current article is almost WP:TNTable. Almost, but salvagable - cut down plot summary fancruft, add something based on the above sources, and we are GTG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the above sources are enough for the article to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes GNG per Rorshacma. The solution is to improve the article through editing.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2021 (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.