Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boonie Bears
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boonie Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find reliable sources about this TV series under either the English or Chinese names, so I don't think it passes the general notability guideline. (I relied on Google Translate in my search for Chinese-language sources though, so people who speak Chinese may have more luck.) The sources in the article are either primary sources or don't cover the TV show in any detail. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are references cited in the article. As stated in the article, this is the most popular children's cartoon in China. There are a billion people watching this programme. Wikipedia is full of articles, not just on US television series, but on individual episodes and characters of US television series. Boonie Bears is definitely notable. Admittedly, Boonie Bears is not on US (or Japanese) prime-time television yet, but then Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the world. Anyway, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion guidelines say, deletion should be a last resort; consider a {Notability} tag instead.
- The reliable sources guidelines do allow the use of primary sources; that is not a problem per se. The guidelines only state that secondary sources are desirable. (It seems that all the pages on the net at the moment about Boonie Bears just recycle a few information pages from the producers; some are translations). However, any coverage of current events must use primary sources initially. Boonie Bears is still a new program, so it will take some time to get through to secondary compilations; that is no reason to delete the article.
- I've added a reference to the Baidu 'wikipedia' article to Boonie Bears. This should address some notability/primary-source concerns. Also, do search using Baidu (eg [1]); this brings up many articles. (By the way, I think 熊出没注意 is not related to 熊出没, so ignore it). m.e. (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi m.e. It looks like you are under a few misapprehensions about how we decide whether things are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia: a lack of secondary sources about the programme is a reason to delete the article, according to the notability guidelines. You might also want to read our essay on subjects where it is too soon to have an article, our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and this short and simple guide to judging notability. If you are aware of any secondary sources about the show, either in English or Chinese (or anything else, for that matter), then that might be evidence that we could use to prove notability. Let me know if you need any clarification on any of this - I'll be happy to help. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Baike article should count as independent and significant; you can make a call as to whether it is reliable, and whether one article is enough to establish significance. Baidu Baike sees itself as the Chinese answer to Wikipedia, as QQ to ICQ, Baidu to Google search, etc. But really we need someone with some knowledge of Chinese television review sites to find some independent reviews of the programme. m.e. (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Baidu Baike doesn't count as reliable, as it is user-generated. (Have a look at WP:USERGENERATED for the guideline.) I'm sure you can appreciate why we have this rule - if we didn't, anyone could create a wiki page on their own pet theory and then use that as justification to have a Wikipedia article on it. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Baike article should count as independent and significant; you can make a call as to whether it is reliable, and whether one article is enough to establish significance. Baidu Baike sees itself as the Chinese answer to Wikipedia, as QQ to ICQ, Baidu to Google search, etc. But really we need someone with some knowledge of Chinese television review sites to find some independent reviews of the programme. m.e. (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi m.e. It looks like you are under a few misapprehensions about how we decide whether things are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia: a lack of secondary sources about the programme is a reason to delete the article, according to the notability guidelines. You might also want to read our essay on subjects where it is too soon to have an article, our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and this short and simple guide to judging notability. If you are aware of any secondary sources about the show, either in English or Chinese (or anything else, for that matter), then that might be evidence that we could use to prove notability. Let me know if you need any clarification on any of this - I'll be happy to help. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Baidu Baike article links this news report (Google translation), which looks like it could be worth further investigation. Google Translate does not do a very good job on it, though, and I have no way of knowing whether the site would generally be viewed as reliable - could any Chinese speakers comment on its suitability? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- looks like they've run the producer's media release. m.e. (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the end, I'm more interested in keeping the content somewhere rather than as a separate page, so would you consider creating a Chinese Animated Television Series (or whatever) page and moving the Boonie Bears content there (with a redirect), if Boonie Bears is not considered notable enough for its own page? m.e. (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - a merge or a redirect might be a good solution if we can find a suitable target. In this kind of situation list articles are often used to group otherwise non-notable topics together if the notability of the group as a whole can be proven. Such a page might look like List of China Central Television programmes or List of animated China Central Television programmes. I can't see any pages like this that have been made already, but maybe you could try your hand at making one if you feel up to it. If that sounds like something you would like to do, I recommend discussing it first at WikiProject Television to see if other editors agree with your ideas, and to see how they think it would fit in with the wider topic area. (I'd drop a note at WikiProject China as well to let them know about the discussion.) You could also draft it in your userspace if you would like time to get it ready before putting it in the main article space. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 07:58, 15 July 2012 (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.