Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple and Brown

Purple and Brown

Purple and Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable short. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. It won a BAFTA British Academy Children's Award[1] and it has received coverage such as [2].--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Winning a BAFTA makes it notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Strong Keep Nominator's reason above for deletion was "Non-notable short. No sources found". The article made an assertion of notability when nominated. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. However, the assertion of notability was easy to verify with a simple search and one click of the mouse. The nom's statement that no sources could be found and that the film is thus non-notable has been shown as incorrect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  And a note about this failing WP:DEL#REASON and it being worth improving under WP:ATD: It took only a few minutes and 4 edits to add the article infobox and three decent (easily found) sources through regular editing. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The WP:NOTABILITY standard is simple: significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ... [A] one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial." There are three references in the article. The first is two sentences[3] and two sentences is not detailed, significant coverage. The second is an entry on a list[4] of BAFTA winners which is less than a sentence and is again not significant. The third is a news brief[5] about CiTV which has about a third of a sentence on this topic which is again trivial. An editor above points to a six-sentence news brief[6] from Animation Magazine. I suppose good-faith editors could debate whether six sentences provides the detail and depth required to meet the "significant" standard, but even if we reached consensus this article was significant coverage (and reliable and independent) then we would only have one source when we need multiple sources. There seems to be an assertion above that we should take winning a BAFTA children's award in the short form category as an indicator of notability (that is, that winning this award will generally result in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). I looked at other BAFTA children's award short form winners to see what sort of sources they had -- Nick Big Green Thing (2007),[7] My Say (2008),[8] See Something, Say Something (2009),[9] My Favourite Bedtime Story 2010[10] -- and I discovered that contrary to the assertions above, we generally do not write articles on winners of the BAFTA children's award in the short form category. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for sharing the redlinks that might encourage new articles on other BAFTA award winners if it is found that they themselves have coverage enough to suport their own articles. However, this discussion is not about unwritten articles, or who genrally might or might nore write them, it's about just this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for failing to address the lack of significant, detailed coverage and linking to an essay that you've failed to comprehend. Rangoondispenser (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I do comprehend just fine how to recognize WP:WAX arguments when I see them. Thus, it was your comparisons to what has not yet been written that I chose to address, specially as by doing so you shared possibilities for further growth and improvement of this encyclopedia. We have a UK series that has recieved an award notable to the UK. As the availability of significant enough coverage in multiple reliable sources has already been shown, and that the article is further improvable, I need not "address" that concern. What I do comprehend very well that the policy requirement for verifiability does not demand that all sources used to verify must themselves be "significant coverage". I further comprehend quite well that sources should be considered in context to what is being sourced, and that we do have sources "substantial" enough in context to what is being sourced (an award-winning series comprised of 10 to 60 second clamation clips) to meet both WP:V and WP:NF. For such, we do not expect the same world-wide depth of coverage that we might for a big-budget studio blockbuster. We expect, and have found, enough for what it is. The topic meets Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability #3, which is repeated at Wikipedia:Notability (media) and such an award is verifiable. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I accept your lengthy apology. To make a case that this meets WP:NOTABILITY you should point to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Instead of "Notability is WP:INHERITED from the BAFTAs" and "Here's a link to some WP:GOOGLEHITS, there must be "WP:LOTSOFSOURCES" Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
          • You seem to be misapplying or giving undue strength to WP:INHERITED, which as an essay appears written to define relationships between persons by its clarifying that a person being related to someone notable does not ipso-facto create a notability through that relationship. The nutshell for that essay page suggests that an editor avoid short one-liners or simple links, encourages that editors try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, and that editors explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies. To state simply that the series is a BAFTA winner, is one thing.... but to explain clearly that being a BAFTA award winner allows the reasonable presumption that a series is covered directly and in some detail, and the subject of independent secondary commentary and review in some manner, is just as that essay advises. Further, and further, WP:NOTABILITY has many parts beyond its use of WP:GNG, such as Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability #3... and such evidences requiring verifiability as offered. Notability, even if only to the UK as evidenced through winning an award notable to the UK, is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
            • You are still failing to address the lack of significant, detailed coverage and just linking repeatedly to an essay that you've failed to comprehend. Your ignoring all the other editors' one liners and responding to my comment -- the most detailed argument here -- with an essay warning against short one-liners or simple links is part of what makes it clear that you have little comprehension of what you are linking to. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
              • You were linking to an essay you apparently did not yourself comprehend, so that was what needed addressing. This is not the place to debate whether or not the GNG somehow "demands" a 3,000 word review or 5,000 word news article in order to support a 182 word article about an award-winning series about two balls of clay interacting. What IS cogent here is that other editors and myself have opined that verifiability of winning the award and the available coverage IS enough in this instance, per guideline and in context to what is being asserted. You feel you are correct and others are incorrect, but reaching consensus does not require a 100% agreement by all parties. Might we agree that we are allowed to disagree without batting the shuttlecock back and forth? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
                • And now you are busy building a straw man argument, rather than providing examples of significant, detailed coverage in reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • No, I am not, and I have been careful to be very clear in my responses, and simply and politely suggested that we can agree to disagree. Any insistance that all sources mandated by WP:V must be themselves "significant coverage" is not per policy nor guideline. Any insistance that all coverage must be substantial in their depth and scope in order to be considered as significant is not per policy nor guideline. Multiple examples have been offered, that while brief, are not simply trivial mentions in a list and DO "discuss the topic directly and in detail". Through them we have the meeting of current definitions of such set by WP:SIGCOV... a guideline that recognizes that even a short offering in a reliable source may fall under the term significant, as significant and substantial as defined by policy and guideline are not the same thing. I agree that more and bigger would be better, but I disagree that more and better are a mandate. Myself and others have opined that per guideline and policy, and in context to what is being sourced and verified, we have enough coverage for this short article to serve our readers and the project by identifying the topic and showing through its award, just why and where and how it may be considered worthy of notice. As I have explained myself quite carefully, please accept that I now wish to drop the stick. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • When you are arguing about 5,000 word sources when no one else is, you are debating a straw man. When you are arguing about whether Wikipedia:Verifiability requires "significant coverage" when no one else is, you are debating a straw man. Instead of building straw man arguments, you should instead be providing examples of significant, detailed coverage in reliable sources, but you have not. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • The straw man argument is in implying that significant coverage must be itself be substantial coverage, and fails through the clarifying definitions set by policy and guideline. As significant-enough coverage in articles meeting the instruction "directly and in detail" have ALREADY been spoken of far above, and already source the improved article I need not debate the issue ad nauseum, beyond one last attempt at clarification: "Substantial" coverage and "significant" coverage are NOT the same thing. Bye. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Arxiloxos's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. Being a BAFTA award winner allows the reasonable presumption that a series is covered directly and in detail, and the subject of independent secondary commentary and review in some manner. If sources were not availble, we'd not have an article. And while always delightful to have a source providing a 3,000 or 4,000 word article from which to glean information, such is not a mandate of policy nor guideline. A shorter article or a decent more-than-trivial mention within a larger article is considered significant coverage just so long as the topic being sourced is spoken of directly and in some detail.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep sources are found. BAFTA British Academy Children's Award also Okip 02:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)