Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Piggies


 * 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 delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty Piggies

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

contrary to popular belief on Wikipedia, not every show is notable and this one isn't an exception. There was never any meaningful coverage of it outside of "look this exists". No newspapers or books or anything that is useful and encyclopedic. Not sure what additional attention something from 1990 needs, as if it's some historic topic that's hard to find, perhaps we need to go dig through some geocities fan sites? idk. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete "Article does not currently meet WP:N, looking for sources I am not seeing much to suggets it will ever meet WP:N. Prod was contested so listing at AfD." Artw (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as prodder. I don't understand why this was deprodded. As I explained in my prod, a WP:BEFORE involving Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and GBooks found nothing useful as a source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was probably deprodded due to lack of trust in you then. Given your present situation I would expect to see a lot of that. Artw (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - my BEFORE-style search failed to uncover suitable sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - My request for more attention is related to WP:RECENTISM. We have a tendancy to delete things that we can't find sources for in a web search. This series was created in 1990 and is unlikely to show up in a web search. I don't know if it is notable but more than a cursory WP:BEFORE search is going to be required to answer this competently. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you assume that nominators are incapable of searching offline or archived offline sources, as I indicated I already did. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For one, because the editor that PRODded this admitted they had been doing sloppy work ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't prod it, I nominated it here and clearly explained my rationale, so your issues with TPH are pretty irrelevant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is snarky and seems to imply, based on your inclusion of the additional attention justification I used, that my DEPROD was unwarranted. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive. I thought some general background would be helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of irony hypocrisy in you complaining that I or TPH didn't do a before while simultaneously claiming that you either did no before yourself, or did and found nothing or perhaps found something but couldn't be bothered to substantiate your deprod statement, but you do you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ PRAXIDICAE🌈  15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to do research or justification of any sort when DEPRODding. (Though not required, I provide a justification for every DEPROD I do.) This comes under fire frequently by butthurt PRODders and is consistently affirmed. PROD policy is asymetric intentionally because it is an AfD shortcut. If you want a symmetric process use AfD first. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need a lecture on how to use AFD, and certainly don't need one here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you expressed a common misconception about DEPROD so it looked like you did ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 24 June 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.