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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Llamas with Hats[edit]

Llamas with Hats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I didn't want to do this since this is among my favorite animated video series, but Llamas with Hats sadly just falls drastically short of notabillity guidelines. An IP erroneously dePRODded the article with the explanation that sources could be found on the talk page; these sources do not and have never existed on said talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hello, TheTechnician27. It was me who prevented the article from getting PRODDED. I originally De-PRODDED the article from an IP on my trip to Africa and posted eight articles which covered Llamas with Hats significantly on the talk page - TWICE. However, for whatever reason that response didn't appear on the talk page both times I submitted it, even though the message popped up that my edit was published. I assumed there was some sort of minor glitch with posting on talk pages from a different IP, or perhaps my internet connection was so slow that it just wouldn't appear at all, so I left it to see if it would appear soon. However, it still did not at all even back in America, which means I'll have to post what I remember of my original response here - for the third time in a row. (>_<)

These were the three sources about Llamas With Hats which significantly cover the web series, along with other sources from mainstream media publications as well.

1. https://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/screenwriter/2013/04/09/we-recommend-llamas-with-hats/ (Donald Clarke seems to be a regular contributor and staff writer for The Irish Times, so this should be acceptable to use even as a "blog.")
2. https://htxt.co.za/2019/08/llamas-with-hats-returns-as-a-childrens-book/ (talks about the series getting its own children’s book - Impact/Popular Culture?)
3. https://tvovermind.com/llamas-with-hats-reboot/ (opinion piece on why the series needs a reboot, plus impact and legacy - Impact/Popular Culture)

Also, here are other miscellaneous sources which talk about the show as well, which may also help to prove the series' notability.

1. https://www.popdust.com/this-haunts-me-murderous-cartoon-animals-of-the-2000s-2645603268.html (cites the series as an example of a raunchy web cartoon from the 2000s - Premise/Impact)
2. https://urbanmatter.com/10-viral-youtube-videos-from-the-2000s-only-millennials-will-remember/ (cites the series as one of the 10 viral videos of the 2000s, showing its cultural impact - Impact/Popular Culture)
3. https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/youtube-kids-isnt-innocent-seems/ (cites the show as an example of an inappropriate, raunchy cartoon as well - Premise/Info/Impact)
4. https://www.tuttoandroid.net/giochi/llamas-with-hats-calciate-i-turisti-su-android-189741/ (talks about the app version/game version of the series on Android - Popular Culture/Other Media?)
5. https://www.androidpolice.com/2014/04/28/21-best-and-3-wtf-new-android-games-from-the-last-2-weeks-41414-42814/ (talks about the app version/game version of the series on Android - Popular Culture/Other Media?)

These sources should be enough to just barely pass the series as a notable enough topic on Wikipedia per WP:WEB. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SIDENOTE: I've admittedly never heard of the series at all before seeing this article getting PRODDED for the first time, so I found these sources from a place of neutrality. It appears some of these sources were added to the article from when I last checked it (when I De-PRODDED it) to now, so perhaps it may be an example of AfD improvement (I forgot the essay of the article in an AfD which got improved between the 7 days the discussion took place). PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PantheonRadiance: Sorry, I meant to get around to this a couple days ago but completely forgot. This may change your mind, Padgriffin. I heavily disagree that these sources are sufficient, and to me it feels more like an unintentional Gish gallop than a demonstration of any cultural notability. Nevertheless, I'll go through all of these individually.

• The Irish Times blog might contribute slightly under WP:NEWSBLOG, but definitely not enough to pass notability criteria on its own.
• Not seeing any sort of editorial board for HTXT.
• I can't find anything even suggesting that TVOM (TV Over Mind) is a RS, let alone has any sort of editorial oversight whatsoever.

Miscellaneous: (mostly content farms)

• popdust.com is clearly not an RS, with tabloid garbage like "Is Rihanna Pregnant?", "We Need to Talk About Zendaya", and "Kanye West's Obnoxious Divorced Man Energy" littering their front page.
• UrbanMatter isn't talking about "the top 10 viral videos" of the 2000s; they just say: "These are just 10 out of thousands of viral videos that found their way to YouTube in the 2000s." Moreover, I can find no indication that UrbanMatter is a RS, and their whole schtick seems to be pumping out listicle garbage at a breakneck pace, such as (taken from their entertainment section): "Top 3 Movies Set in Las Vegas"; "The 12 Best Monster Movies of All Time"; "Top 5 Movies to Watch in a Relationship"; "What 5 Movies to Watch to Gain Inspiration for Essay Writing?"; etc.
• studybreaks.com is some random website with a handful of college student editors that would pretty clearly not qualify as a WP:RS.
• Tutto is similar to Android Police but in Italian, with the exception that they say they promote products. This statement, however, has no disclaimer saying that they disclose when reviews and articles are paid for, making them, to me, a completely unreliable source.
• Android Police seems to pretty much take anyone with a pulse, and I can find very little on how fact-checking and editorial oversight work.

In conclusion, none of the sources you provided under "miscellaneous" are robust enough to contribute to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• not voting as i have some interest in the outcome, but this cartoon and it's catchphrases might be an unique exemplar, an artifact.

it's also had inserted into it humorous errors, an example of wiki parody that was never flagged until recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkidMountTubularFrame (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PantheonRadiance- seems like the series has enough of a cultural impact to be treated as somewhat notable. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the effort from PantheonRadiance is commendable, I don't think most of these sources qualify for WP:GNG. Of the ones that provide significant coverage (the WP:THREE best), the htxt and tvovermind sources are blogs that I wouldn't consider reliable by Wikipedia standards. The Irish Times source is fine, but the other two lack the same editorial oversight as something published from a credible newspaper. The other miscellaneous sources are passing mentions and list articles that don't consist of significant coverage and therefore don't meet GNG. My WP:BEFORE unfortunately came up empty in an attempt to add better quality sources to this article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jason Steele, he has a few more hits in Google than this show does. It has a brief mention in a Le Huffington Post article in French and something on a German website, neither of which looks useful as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently Jason Steele (animator) doesn't have his own article and Jason Steele is a disambiguation page. I don't think that would be an appropriate redirect target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hello Qwaiiplayer and TheTechnician27, I respect your decisions and responses. I just have a few final notes I want to address, based on a couple hours of conducting some research.

First off, TVOvermind has actually been used over 600 times mainly for articles relating to movies, TV shows and pop culture, even in Good Articles (and even one Featured Article). This isn't to say a source is automatically reliable because it's been used in a GA/FA. However, assuming editors check ALL the sources in a GA/FA review (which they obviously should, especially for something as subject to examination as a Featured Article review), they probably would've commented on whether that outlet is reliable or not. While I couldn't find an editorial policy I noticed that several of the writers who've written articles for the source at least have a Master's degree in Journalism/Writing and have had their works published in other websites as well. I think perhaps it's more of a situationally reliable source. It's at least a step up from a blogospheric website, and if anyone had a problem with TVOvermind, they would've said something a long time ago, especially in something as held up to scrutiny as a Good Article review. Perhaps it's something akin to Screen Rant in this regard; maybe it's okay to use for pop culture topics but not for any controversial statements which would require better sources.

Also, the Popdust piece actually contains 130 words of text about the show (214 if you count the last paragraph it's included in), satisfying WP:100W. I use that essay mostly because Wikipedia doesn't have an official word count for what constitutes significant coverage, so in lieu of the Hypertext source I think that could be an adequate source for notability. As for it being a tabloid, I don't really see it as any less reliable than other journalist websites typically covering pop culture topics. It may not be AS reliable as say, Vogue or Vanity Fair or The Hollywood Reporter, but to dismiss the source as a tabloid because of its emphasis on pop culture over academia is a bit much. The source has at least been used in a couple GAs as well.

Finally, I think some of the sources should be evaluated more on a contextual basis rather than a quantitative basis. Sometimes writers abide by a "brevity is the soul of wit" philosophy and only write the most important aspects of a topic when describing it. In that regard, sometimes a source which only talks about a show in a few sentences is much more significant than a 3,000 word essay on some minute aspect of a show which contains a whole bunch of trivial, indiscriminate details a reader would have to trudge through. For the list-based sources, I think it depends on the type of listicles presented. Something like "Top Ten Characters who wear Pink Scarfs" or virtually anything from BuzzFeed would definitely be a trivial pop culture based list that doesn’t explain enough of its impact. But something like "The Top Ten Best Animated Cartoons of the 2000s" or "Top Ten Most Impactful Viral Videos" is definitely something of importance that can be taken seriously, as it's a true evaluation of both the quality and/or the actual legacy of a specific work as a whole. As for that list, it clearly recognizes it as among the most popular and significant of the viral videos of the 2000s. And as for StudyBreaks, see WP:RSSM: "...They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available."

Overall, these were pretty much the factors that led to me choosing these sources and why I think they were good enough to establish the notability of the web series. If you guys still think the series isn't notable even with these sources, I understand. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, PantheonRadiance. This is quite a long comment, so I'll try to distill it down to its major aspects.

• Please find any evidence whatsoever that TV Overmind has any editorial oversight whatsoever. That editors have not raised concerns about it before over the course of three reviews is not indicative of it being a reliable source; abiding by basic guidelines for what an RS should be is indicative thereof.

• WP:100 is just an essay. It's not something even approximating a policy or a guideline, and in my view (which is just as valid as an essay written by another editor, because again, it's an essay), the essay is both entirely arbitrary and completely leaves out the obvious, prominent counterargument that notability should be proportionate to how reliable a source is and that the word count should therefore be decided on a source-by-source basis.

• I called popdust "tabloid garbage" because of the contents of its articles. For example, please look at "Is Rihanna pregnant?" The article is a rambling, barely coherent mess that spends at least a third of the article shilling "a brand that helps couples achieve healthy pregnancies using natural products to boost nutrition." The source is trash. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by PantheonRadiance. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 13:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets general notability guidelines. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gusfriend (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of the sources provided, not just "votes".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems to pass muster to me. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:10, 5 February 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.