Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends

Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was unable to find any sources beside a passing mention, a couple of dubious magazines, and the website of the creators. That means a lack of significant coverage. This "educative sex comedy" fails WP:N. The cartoon itself appears to be obscure, too obscure for Wikipedia. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 03:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, Sexuality and gender, and France. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Libération (the source used in the second citation on the page) is considered a reliable source, per WP:CiteUnseen at least. I don't have time to look into this myself, but my guess is if they've covered it, there are almost certainly other reliable French-language articles about the show out there. Yitz (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Strong Keep I would say the show is notable enough to keep, although the sourcing could be better, and I admit the show is a little obscure. In fact, it was notable enough to be included on List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2015–2019 and List of animated television series of 2019 too. Historyday01 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessed and changing my position to strong keep. The page still needs work, but I think it should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a lot of coverage, some of it reliable and significant. I found this [1] pretty quickly. What an obscure, funny little cartoon. I will blame Historyday01 for me being here, the notice was posted on his page, and it piqued my interest. Didn't take long to find some articles, although most are not English and take some effort to determine the quality of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned by those above me, the series is taken up as the main case study of "Economic and industrial issues of French pornographic and erotic animation", a peer-reviewed article in French Information and Communication Sciences Review. I'm reading it through machine translation, so take this with a un grain de sel, but the article appears to cover some production and publication details; general plot patterns and themes; the history of the show; and analysis of what the show says about the marketability of debatably pornographic animation. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, considering what you and Dennis Brown are saying, I think I will change my position to strong keep. If its in a peer-reviewed article, then that's a pretty strong reliable source to me. Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my nomination has been a mistake, I am not good at finding foreign-language sources. Closing per WP:SNOWBALL. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:56, 1 March 2022 (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.