Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertie the Bus

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 delete. I disregard the opinion of Andrew Davidson because it contains personal attacks, which are not permitted (WP:NPA). Sandstein 10:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie the Bus[edit]

[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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three Thomas articles nominated for deletion. The Thomas characters mentioned have over 70 years of constant publication in books and 35 years on TV. This should be discussed on WP:THOMAS instead of randomly deleting much loved characters for deletion. Please don't force Thomas fans to use the ad laden fandom wikis when we can have articles discussed in a encyclopedic context on Wikipedia. 2A01:4C8:57:1178:8887:69D5:20FD:50C1 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the purpose of those fan wikis. They are great places for non-notable content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a sure way to save these articles, and it is not by talk page discussions. It's by providing significant coverage in reliable sources about them. In five days, no one's been motivated enough to try. Ravenswing 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another cookie-cutter drive-by with no specifics about the topic. The abuse here is the use of Twinkle to spam these cut/paste nominations without demonstrating any understanding or appreciation of the topic. This is part of the family of characters created by the Rev. W. Awdry and so there are clear alternatives to deletion. Improvement seems quite feasible as there are sources to be found such as Banking on Bertie the Bus, which details creation of a spinoff show about the character. WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing in no way establishes that multiple people outside of creating the fiction have cared in any way about this character enough to generate secondary sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; full stop. Neither keep proponent has advanced a valid rationale for keeping the article -- being in a "family of characters created by the Rev. W. Awdry" being part of no notability guideline I've ever seen -- and if improvement is indeed feasible, in the seven years this article's been tagged and the week-plus since it was first prodded, why hasn't this been attempted?). A redirect wouldn't work, per WP:XY. Ravenswing 15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge and admittedly allowing some special pleading. I just don't see the sources to support an article like this. The fiction is obviously very notable, and if you could even find a single source, it should be covered somewhere, and probably somewhere else. The List of Thomas & Friends characters is in a sorry state, as are the linked / sub-articles. I suggest a merge because there's a shred of primary sourced material (not independent enough to support notability) that could be WP:PRESERVED at a broader list. If there's a chance at making this better than a fandom wiki, it's to work on a better quality list. Jontesta (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not exist to preserve primary sources. That is not our function nor what we do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and Wikisoure can't help since it's not really primary but fancruft. But it is worth remembering there is https://ttte.fandom.com/wiki/Bertie and it will be happy to take the content in - just copy it there and all is preserved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do include some primary sourced information in context with other secondary sourced information, as part of an actually notable article. I'm just trying to seek a compromise in case a valid merge target comes up in discussion. Jontesta (talk) 19:17, 7 August 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.