Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck the Great Western Engine

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duck the Great Western Engine

[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)

This character does not appear to be discussed in reliable secondary sources, all of the coverage appears to be in blogs, primary fiction sources, user-generated sites, and sales sites. Not a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic lacks real world information from reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fancruft. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." // Timothy :: talk 20:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:V and WP:NFICTION, as well as WP:GNG. I guess it is time to prune the Thomas tTE cruft to reasonable level.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus:(but with a preference to keep if the consensus is in the balance)~~Keep~~: The articles existed for 15 years and get a notability tag for 2 weeks! Per the precedent to some extent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389 perhaps may need to go to a mass nomination to get a consistent result across a number of articles. Obviously I'm UK based to Thomas has a higher profile here. The citations of the article content are a nightmare but the book link immediately reveals to me three books where this engine is the primary or co-primary character. And this is the sort of deletion that should wikipedia major donators to consider their funding of wikipedia. I went to have a look at fandom.com to see what it was like and it turned me off (But I am somewhat of a luddite on all this new technology graphicy stuff). Had anybody tried to discuss on the associate project ... allbeit its inactive? ~~Anyybody bothers to notify the trains project as well? (delsorted)~~ Mind you the alerts system is barfed and didnt run fully 18 august 2020. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: I'm not sure how any of that really addresses the WP:GNG issue. Age of an article or length of tag placement aren't reasons to not delete, and the fictional works a character appears in are considered to be primary sources that don't establish notability. Personally, I think a bundled nomination like the EBCDIC is a bad idea in this case. There were similar amounts of notability for all of those code articles. However, there's a big difference between Duck the Great Western Engine and Thomas the Tank Engine. Thomas is slam-dunk notable, but a lot of the more minor characters are likely not GNG passes. There's just no good way to bundled nom, as all of these character pages have very different characteristics and some are notable, and others are probably not. Each one needs discussed individually. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for any signs of a desire to retain Thomas (TtTE) related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force. From that it appears there were some reasonable discussion at [[1]] but there's been no attempt to bring it to the task force page. Takeaways that discussion indicate many former Wikipedia TtTE contributors have switched to

Fandom (Website) at ([[2]]) with no need to take content from here. The discussion also lists concerns linking to the commericial Fandom website from Wikipedia, and I share concerns to some extent. While there might be reasons for retaining this article if it was better sourced, and I have some views for doing that; it isnt likely to be in its current form. On that basis I have changed by !vote. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This would be more suited to a dedicated TtTE wiki. Here, it is excessive and badly sourced fancruft. Reyk _YO! 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't care how old the article is, if it fails GNG then it should go Spiderone 10:11, 21 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.