Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony

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 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. The only sources currently cited are not independent or not reliable. Searching online only yields trivial mentions. The only source I found is this short Screen Rant article, but even if that qualifies as a reliable and independent secondary source it doesn’t meet the expectation that “multiple sources are generally expected.” The show won some awards that might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT, but even WEBCRIT asserts that qualifying articles generally have significant coverage (i.e. "In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful … meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." The hosts/puppeteers, producers/studios, and the muppets might pass WP:GNG, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a 34-episode series that Time magazine hailed in its list of 25 sites "we can't live without", leading off the article with a photo from the show. (see footnote 6). Because of the age of the show, I don't think a Google search is adequate. We should not delete this unless someone goes to a library and searches hard-copy sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ssilvers: The Time article is actually for Rotten Tomatoes and mentions Statler & Waldorf as an afterthought of an afterthought. I'm not sure why it got a picture at the top when Movies.com isn't even listed let alone Statler & Waldorf specifically. Here is the relevant content, "Rotten Tomatoes: Gathers movie reviews from far and wide, and reports box office and other stats; flicks receive a critical average on the 100-point "tomatometer." Movies.com also gets a nod for streaming episodes of "Statler & Waldorf: From the Balcony," an Ebert & Roeper spoof starring those lovable muppet-curmudgeons." I understand your rationale though. Perhaps a merge would be better? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look good to get defensive about your AfD nominations. You make your argument at the top, and if people disagree, then move on. This is a detailed article. Merging it would be destroying a lot of content. Let's see what other people think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that this was the case and was recently introduced to the concept of WP:BLUD. I apologize for the inappropriate response and I'll refrain from responding to others in the discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if you have more information and evidence to add you can, of course, advance it support your position, but it is up to the community to judge which sources are most persuasive. And, of course, you can answer any questions of commenters and engage in discussion regarding the facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Webby award win. matt91486 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Award-winner. RomanSpa (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per RomanSpa Idunnox3 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.