Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property Ladder (TV series)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Property Ladder (TV series)

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

All hits I got on ProQuest for the UK version were the likes of "Property Ladder host Sarah Beeny to do blah blah blah". The US version turned up a single Chicago Tribune review, but everything else was just press releases or gossip about their host, too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom,  and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep both per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources about the UK version of Property Ladder:  The review notes: "For the uninitiated, Property Ladder is an English real estate show which follows the exploits of would-be developers from property purchase to re-sale, documenting all their expensive renovation disasters along the way. For the uninitiated, Property Ladder is an English real estate show which follows the exploits of would-be developers from property purchase to re-sale, documenting all their expensive renovation disasters along the way. ... All of this makes for great viewing, but it's Beeny that makes Property Ladder truly unmissable. ... Of course, the best part is most people on Property Ladder don't listen to Sarah Beeny, because they're morons and don't realise what amazing superhuman abilities she has."  The review notes: "... Sarah Beeny muses on the seemingly inevitable moment that occurs in every episode of the TV home-renovation show Property Ladder. The pig-headed, deluded and occasionally downright stupid wannabe developers have finally finished their project, months behind schedule and thousands over budget. Throughout the development, they have comprehensively ignored Beeny's advice, choosing the most expensive of everything rather than the best value options. ... And so it is, making Property Ladder compulsive viewing and Beeny, 35, a bona fide TV star. She comes across as capable, knowledgeable, patient to a fault - and, crucially, smarter than some of the participants who think they are cleverer than she is. She's foxy, on television and in the flesh, fun and funny. Some of her male fan base also imagine her to be bossy - in a good way."  Sources about the US version of Property Ladder:  The review notes: "The verdict: One of several shows on the practice of trying to make a quick buck with tons of sweat and steep risk, Property Ladder reveals the dangers that come with the territory. Kemp's advice is informative to anyone considering becoming a real estate developer. Part cautionary tale, part disaster, Property Ladder is compelling. A must-see for anyone considering flipping."</li> <li> The article notes: "Production began here last week for a show tentatively titled "Property Ladder" that will follow 12 people as they fix up places they have recently bought with the idea of selling them quickly. The drama lies in whether the "flip" is a flop or a success. ... Unlike reality shows like "Survivor," where the prize for winning is $1 million, in this one, the reward is the glory of being on television, and the chance to get some expert opinion from the host, Kirsten Kemp. ... Each one-hour episode will show owners grappling with renovation, budgets, neighbors, community boards, significant others and anything else that comes their way during the process. The show is scheduled to air on the Learning Channel in early 2005."</li> <li> The article notes: " TLC's new series, "Property Ladder," should come with a warning: "This program contains reckless content. Prospective buyers' discretion is advised."The show documents investors' experiences with "flipping" -- buying a home, fixing it up and (hopefully) selling it for a profit. In an unabashed attempt to heighten interest in the outcome, "Property Ladder" focuses on people who have little or no experience. ...  The cautionary tales are framed by extreme foolishness: Ashley pays an acquaintance to repaint her kitchen cabinets. He makes off with her money and the cabinets, never to return. Anthony buffs his hardwood floors without professional help, resulting in a perilous- yet-madcap dance between homeowner and high-powered floor sander."</li> <li> The article notes: " A British television production company is looking for an American real estate agent or small-property renovator to host, yes, yet another reality show.The program will be the U.S. version of "Property Ladder," a popular British how-to that follows first-timers through their travails as they renovate and resell properties. ... And for the 13 hour-long presentations that will follow a different American renovator each week, "Property Ladder USA" (as it is tentatively being called) needs a host -- or, as they say in the United Kingdom, "a presenter." ...  The show also wants people who are willing to be on the receiving end of that blunt advice, ideally someone who is about to buy his or her first investment property."</li> <li> The review notes: "Hard-nosed real estate expert Kirsten Kemp Becker - you know, the consultant rehabbers regularly ignore on TLC's Property Ladder series - offers Hope for Your Home, a show providing participants with $10,000 in cash, a contractor consultant and loads of advice on how to boost a home's value for a new loan or sale. It debuts tonight. ... Best of all, TLC has crafted a series that acknowledges the bitter reality homeowners face today, while offering a makeover tale that could help viewers deal with their own housing nightmares."</li> </li></ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Property Ladder to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * All but one of those is a trivial mention. The NYT and Chicago Tribune sources are projected sources on before the show even existed, and the Tampa Bay one dedicates less than a sentence to it. Both of the first two sources are just fluff pieces on the host that again, dedicate less than a full sentence to the show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hartford Courant article provides substantial coverage about the show in three sections: "the shtick", "the verdict", and "the details". It is not a "fluff piece". The New York Times provides substantial coverage about the show's production and history. That it was published before the show aired does not detract from its being significant coverage about the show. The article in the Chicago Tribune was published after the show premiered because it discusses in detail what happens in one of the episodes. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't change the fact that most of the other sources are speculative, or that the Hartford source is only a single paragraph. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hartford Courant article provides 270 words of coverage about Property Ladder. This is significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BIGNUMBER says: "A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube." I am not making the argument that the subject is notable through "quantity of members". I am making the argument that the subject is notable through having received coverage in 270 quality words of coverage in the Hartford Courant article. Cunard (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still only one valid source. The rest is just fluff about the hosts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Tribune article (published after the show premiered) and The New York Times article (published before the show premiered) are not "just fluff about the hosts". They provide significant coverage about the show itself. Cunard (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT article says "tentatively titled". It was written before the show had even started production or even had a name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough in the Sunday Mail and The Hartford Courant articles to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what? A bunch of stupid bullshit on the host's personal life? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The general notability guidelines have been kept. The sourcing found is sufficient.   D r e a m Focus  22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sufficient for what? A bunch of BS about the host and speculation from back when the show didn't even have a title? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. Donald D23   talk to me  14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep checked three of the listed sources and they all provided what I would consider significant coverage about the show, with mentions of the host who is a part of the show, but the focus was the show. When the significant coverage happened absolutely does not matter. Coverage before it airs, while it's airing, and after it's done airing all qualify. It is actually better for it to be like that, rather than a bunch of coverage once it aired and then never again with nothing before. The fact that The New York Times decided to give a full article about a show that was only a week into production is telling. Anyways once this is closed if kept, I'd suggest a merge discussion for the talk pages. Unless the articles are expanded, plenty of sources here, the merge could at least be discussed. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.