Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka

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 keep. no consensus on merge Flowerparty^☀ 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka

Fails both WP:GNG (no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") & WP:PLOT (only substantive content is the plot summary). Only cited sources are (two) for bare existence & (one) brief recommendation in a book on choosing children's books (by an author of no apparent prominence). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be plenty of coverage on google news. [1] ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see you are still using Google(-news)-hits (the majority of which are mere announcements of video releases and the like -- "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." -- WP:NOT#NEWS) in place of evidence of "significant coverage of the topic. I would suggest that this does not bring much (any?) more depth than the sources already cited in the nomination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first hit on Google News is a story with this article subject in the title that appears (from the preview available) to cover it substantially and it's not yet included as a citation. [2] ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Author:. 3 2 1 PENGUINS! THE CHEATING SCALES OF BULLAMANKA. Big Idea Productions, 60 minutes, $12.95. "3, 2, 1, Penguins" is a Christian animated children's ...", a 235 word blurb in the 'Calendar' section -- it appears to be a video-release-announcement. About as 'substantial' as candy floss -- or as your argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The portion of the article that is available to me states "The main characters are 7-year-old-twins Jason and Michelle, who are spending their summer vacation at their eccentric English grandmother's cottage. The two kids think it will be boring until they discover Grandmum's cool attic. "The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka" is the second episode in the series. In this story, Michelle cheats to beat her brother in a game of "Squid-Tac-Toad," a game Grandmum got while vacationing in Australia." Which seems to have substance and to be more than just an announcement or a blurb. But opinions can differ. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That portion (which is 1/3 to 1/4 the total 'article') is merely a plot summary, which is quite in keeping with "an announcement or a blurb". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment clearly the reference given by ChildofMidnight would make a good example of a "blurb" and in no ways constitutes in-depth coverage much less significant or substantial in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ( or keep -- see below) into a list of episodes. This is one of a series of animated half-hour videos, & I would treat them as episodes, not individual titles. The series has some notability. The individual ones probably do not--and even if they were borderline, it should not be handled this way; such articles should best be included as part of a combination article, not separately, unless the series is actually famous not merely notable. We could probably justify treating Star Trek or MASH in this fashion; sometimes certain individual ones may be particularly notable. The ref cited by CoM is a 200 word routine TV-guide like plot summary, exactly the thing that does not represent significant coverage. It detracts from the good case we can make for episodes of famous series to try to stretch it this far. DGG (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with DGG that a merge is worth considering, I was able to sandblast the plot and expand and cleanup the article. I find it has received individual attention from children's reviewers outside of the series as a whole, allowing it a seperate, albeit minor, notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is also OK and then we can consider whether to retitle it as a combined article on the group of episodes, with this the 2nd section. I think you did a great job of rewriting the content. It will do very well in the merged article. But it doesn't actually matter. What matters is the content, not how we divide it up. It does make a difference whether we have good content on the individual episodes. It matters very much--we're an encyclopedia and we ought to have it. so. It does not make any significant difference whether or not they get combined into an article. There are many equally good ways to organize material. What we really need is some information on the other episodes, and--even more--some information on the importance of the underlying show, so we can judge how much detail is appropriate. DGG (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2009 (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.