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.
Keep There is no good description of the character in the other pages and, even if there were, this was not be a reason to delete. The character is the star of the show and is remarkably popular. They are therefore comparable with
Captain Kirk,
Batman,
Sherlock Holmes and other iconic characters, for which we have separate pages. The page in question is new and so just a stub but there is plenty of material to support expansion such as Barbie meets Bob the Builder at the Workstation; William of Sen to Bob the Builder: non‐cognate cultural perceptions of constructors; "Can we fix it?": Bob the Builder as a discursive resource for children, &c. Relevant policies include
WP:IMPERFECT;
WP:BITE and
WP:ATD. Can we fix it? Yes, we can ...
Andrew🐉(
talk)
20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There are now five sentences and counting. Such expansion is not achieved by deletion or redirection as they tend to
disrupt constructive activity.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, with the additions by Andrew Davidson, this article is now better than the entry at the list article, and while the sources currently in the article are still a little iffy on whether they pass GNG, it is clear that there is enough coverage out there to pass it. This:
[1] is just one example of that coverage.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
09:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as notable per significant coverage in sources identified above. In addition to these, the book Marketing by Reynolds & Lancaste has this character-centric vignette
here. It also looks like more details here:
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]. There's also quite a bit of press discussing the character's redesign in 2014.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List_of_Bob_the_Builder_characters#Main. Of course the main character of the show is notable, but that does not mandate its own article. Even with the expansion a split is not warranted: the list is there for the exact reason of being able to expand on each character, including the sources presented, without needing separate pages. "People will search for this" is not a valid reason to keep an article.
Reywas92Talk19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP Material in this article wouldn't fit in the other one. Enough referenced material to meet the general notability guidelines.
DreamFocus17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources identified. I think that the negative coverage of the 2014 redesign are especially relevant in determining the character's notability; that's coverage that is directly about the character itself rather than the show or franchise. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NPOSSIBLE, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Your argument contradicts the notability guideline.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. The article in its current state warrants notability tag, BUT sources identified above by Coolabahapple show the topic is notable. 1)
This has several paragraphs, through reading them it seems the discussion of the show and the character is very intertwined (PSA: use
Library Genesis to read the article if you struggle with non-OA sources). 2)
[6] is not in-depth and uses the character just as a semi-random example for study whether kids can confuse real world with fictional, it does not discuss the show or the character. So those are the fail. And I want to explicitly address the part of the article recently added sourced to one of them that states "The character of Bob the Builder has helped to change negative stereotypes of construction workers among children." The source article DOES NOT make it clear if it refers to BtB a character, or BtB the show. BtB helped change the stereotypes, but BtB the show and BtB the character are very hard to distinguish in this context. But the rest of the sources do seem do discuss the character, due to their 'makeover' from mid-2010s. It's borderline, but I think that this can be kept due to the discussion of this one aspect of the character, since we do have 2+ RS on this (and more can be easily found:
[7],
[8],
[9]. All that said, I do wonder if in this case there is much separation between the show and the character. Essentially, it's a
WP:ONEVENT type of coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here01:47, 15 April 2020 (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.
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.
Keep There is no good description of the character in the other pages and, even if there were, this was not be a reason to delete. The character is the star of the show and is remarkably popular. They are therefore comparable with
Captain Kirk,
Batman,
Sherlock Holmes and other iconic characters, for which we have separate pages. The page in question is new and so just a stub but there is plenty of material to support expansion such as Barbie meets Bob the Builder at the Workstation; William of Sen to Bob the Builder: non‐cognate cultural perceptions of constructors; "Can we fix it?": Bob the Builder as a discursive resource for children, &c. Relevant policies include
WP:IMPERFECT;
WP:BITE and
WP:ATD. Can we fix it? Yes, we can ...
Andrew🐉(
talk)
20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There are now five sentences and counting. Such expansion is not achieved by deletion or redirection as they tend to
disrupt constructive activity.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, with the additions by Andrew Davidson, this article is now better than the entry at the list article, and while the sources currently in the article are still a little iffy on whether they pass GNG, it is clear that there is enough coverage out there to pass it. This:
[1] is just one example of that coverage.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
09:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as notable per significant coverage in sources identified above. In addition to these, the book Marketing by Reynolds & Lancaste has this character-centric vignette
here. It also looks like more details here:
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]. There's also quite a bit of press discussing the character's redesign in 2014.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List_of_Bob_the_Builder_characters#Main. Of course the main character of the show is notable, but that does not mandate its own article. Even with the expansion a split is not warranted: the list is there for the exact reason of being able to expand on each character, including the sources presented, without needing separate pages. "People will search for this" is not a valid reason to keep an article.
Reywas92Talk19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP Material in this article wouldn't fit in the other one. Enough referenced material to meet the general notability guidelines.
DreamFocus17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources identified. I think that the negative coverage of the 2014 redesign are especially relevant in determining the character's notability; that's coverage that is directly about the character itself rather than the show or franchise. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NPOSSIBLE, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Your argument contradicts the notability guideline.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. The article in its current state warrants notability tag, BUT sources identified above by Coolabahapple show the topic is notable. 1)
This has several paragraphs, through reading them it seems the discussion of the show and the character is very intertwined (PSA: use
Library Genesis to read the article if you struggle with non-OA sources). 2)
[6] is not in-depth and uses the character just as a semi-random example for study whether kids can confuse real world with fictional, it does not discuss the show or the character. So those are the fail. And I want to explicitly address the part of the article recently added sourced to one of them that states "The character of Bob the Builder has helped to change negative stereotypes of construction workers among children." The source article DOES NOT make it clear if it refers to BtB a character, or BtB the show. BtB helped change the stereotypes, but BtB the show and BtB the character are very hard to distinguish in this context. But the rest of the sources do seem do discuss the character, due to their 'makeover' from mid-2010s. It's borderline, but I think that this can be kept due to the discussion of this one aspect of the character, since we do have 2+ RS on this (and more can be easily found:
[7],
[8],
[9]. All that said, I do wonder if in this case there is much separation between the show and the character. Essentially, it's a
WP:ONEVENT type of coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here01:47, 15 April 2020 (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.