Talk:Bartholomew Cubbins

Redirection
As my redirect to The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins was reverted, I'm coming here for a discussion, in hopes to avoid what I think is an unnecessary AfD. I believe that this article is non-notable, as I have stated in my edit summaries, based on the Wikipedia guidelines for notability in fiction, specifically under the section of "Elements of fiction", which states:

"Elements of a work of fiction, including [...] characters [...] are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources. For fictional elements, this will typically include the real-world context and analysis of the elements, and can include influence and other aspects of its development, critical reception of the elements, and popularity of the element through readership/viewership ratings and marketing. Notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work. Reputable academic studies of individual elements may also demonstrate notability."

This article currently meets none of these criteria.

I should also point out that the one piece of actual information in the article, about Bartholomew's name possibly originating from the Bible, is directly related to one of the books specifically, and belongs on that article, not here. Since this character only appears in three books, simply linking between those three articles (something along the lines of "Bartholomew Cubbins has appeared in two other books by Dr. Seuss") should be sufficient.

Also, as this character has not appeared in any other media, any other references are most likely to be directly to related to one book in particular, so inclusion on this separate character article would most likely be unnecessary. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A few references/notes concerning the character Bartholomew Cubbins (BC):


 * The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss - BC is a character in this television series.


 * this lesson plan is focused on the character, not the books. (See this lesson plan for the book.)


 * this appears to be an exemplar by a teacher for students. It's based on what might be one or more good secondary sources, but I'm not certain if they exist online.


 * This page has a pdf (you have to scroll to the bottom to find the link), which the songwriter uses BC as an allegory.


 * This is a newspaper article.


 * This is more an analogy of the hats than of BC, but I thought it worth noting at least.


 * This is a theatrical production, but it's merely an adaption of the book


 * This is about the book too, but I think it's an awesome picture, with good information.


 * A bit of fun : )


 * This should be enough to start, I think. - jc37 10:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. I'll go through them for you.


 * As the series is very derivative and not particularly related (as a direct adaptation), any character information would be relevant only to that article, not this one.
 * For the second, that's a made-up letter, not from any Seuss source—I don't see how this could possibly be used as a reference.
 * The third and fourth are both not reliable sources (and again I can't find anything that would be used in this article).
 * The fifth simply talks about the book.
 * The sixth is not a reliable source either (and as you said, just a very weak analogy about wearing a lot of hats, which, again, would be referenced only to the 500 Hats book).
 * The seventh doesn't have any information that I can see to be referenced (and would belong with the book anyway).
 * The eighth is just about an audiobook recording—there's nothing to cite.
 * And the ninth may be fun but isn't relevant either.


 * So overall I still see no information that could possibly be added. This article is basically devoid of any relevant content. What in the world do you want to keep it for? I simply don't understand this. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I disagree with your analysis of several of these. References illustrating the "character" are useful.
 * For one thing, the series, while perhaps derivitive of the works, duplicates the characters, not the works.
 * Anyway, I think you should go back through and read a few of those surces again. There is indeed "secondary source" usage outside the books themselves, which is what this was intended to illustrate. Also, please remember that a source needn't be "online" to be a source.
 * (Incidentally, I added the last few for your benefit, and becuase I was curious as to what you thought about them for the book article (the image excluded, obviously). Your lack of interest in such seems somewhat enlightening, as well.) - jc37 03:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lack of interest? Enlightening? Go look at these diffs of Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories (now a GA, incidentally) or The Seven Lady Godivas, which are mostly my work. It's not a lack of interest, but rather a lack of any good, solid, reliable sources (which these aren't). You seem to disagree with me, but you haven't actually edited this article into anything substantial or meaningful—which I can't understand. Don't prove me wrong with a list of links. Prove me wrong with a good article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I believe you were "proven wrong" at the last AfD you attempted. I don't think that your interpretation matches what those there felt. That said, please feel free to attempt another AfD. Consensus trumps opinion, yours or mine.
 * In the meantime, I think I'm going to go post this at a WikiProject, and see what others think. - jc37 03:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. Prove me wrong by improving this article, not by citing another AfD. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I think I may have calmed down sufficiently to apologize. I did mean (most of) what I said, but I think it's becoming too personal and I don't see a positive end to this discussion. I didn't mean to attack you, but anger about AfD has been building up for a while and I think I majorly need to relax. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion—you can do whatever you'd like—and do my absolutely darndest to pretend this article never existed; hopefully that will help. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I offer you my apology as well. As you said, I meant what I said, but the "tone" was as it was, in response to your apparent tone.
 * Anyway, we can continue the discussion or not, at your choice. But either way, it would be nice if others might join in as well. - jc37 07:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll join in. One thing that looks significant is that this whole article appears to have been created to promote a book not by Dr Seuss, but by one of those derivative self-help book hacks who likes to parasite on other people's work with banal "insights". I won't venture that this is shameless self-promotion, but at least it's shameless promotion. This is far too trivial a fact to be mentioned on a page devoted to the character. So I move that we strike the reference to the Parables of Dr Seuss.


 * With that gone, there will pretty obviously not be enough on the page to make it worth keeping up. And I venture that there just enough that could be added to the page to make it valuable. On the other hand, a "Characters in Dr Seuss" might, just conceivably, be of some value, summarizing his few recurring characters--Bartholomew, Horton, Marco, The Cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.70.194 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Short, RIP
Dr. Robert Short is passed away from this world, so it could not be self-promotion unless you can edit Wikipedia from Heaven. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whos on First
The Whos of Whoville also appear in two different books by Mr. Geisel. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection
I request this article be protected from vandalism, and that only registered editors be allowed to edit it. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Short
The late Robert Short was a beloved, noncontroversial, popular author. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)