Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Kids


 * 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. And further, no consensus that this is a hoax. If further discussion on merger continues editorially, would highly advise toning down the rhetoric. Star  Mississippi  13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Updated to Keep per discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi. Thanks @Scope_creep for flagging what I missed. Star  Mississippi  15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

BBC Kids

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This "article" may without exaggeration be the worst example of WP:SYNTH to ever hit Wikipedia. Forget reliable, not a single source period (update: one questionable source found below) so much as mentions any two – let alone more – of these completely independent channels together! The idea of an "international BBC Kids brand" for TV channels literally only exists as this Wikipedia page, until of course some hapless media intern comes along and writes an article "inspired" by this one before it could be deleted... Modernponderer (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Modernponderer (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree there is merit in covering the "BBC Kids" channels with two separate entries, one for the 2001-2018 channel in the Americas, and one for the 2021-current offerings. A page exists for the former, but currently this is the only page that aims to cover all aspects of the latter. I would not object if the page currently focused on the Australian BBC Kids feed had it's focus broadened globally, or if the page proposed for deletion remained but was refocused on the 2021-current period. But I don't approve of deleting this page without finding a home for it's content not covered elsewhere.Transient-understanding (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Transient-understanding, even the newer channels are (with one questionable exception found below) simply not discussed together in any sources. There is already a "home" for this content: individual channel articles, which do not violate WP:SYNTH.
 * (By the way, there was no "2001-2018 channel in the Americas" – it was 100%, entirely, purely a Canadian channel which was simply rebroadcasted in some other countries. That's another type of misinformation that "articles" like this help propagate if they are not deleted quickly.) Modernponderer (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The noms claim that "BBC Kids" is not an international brand is hard to fathom. "BBC Kids launches in South Africa and Taiwan" from Broadband TV News opens with "BBC Studios is partnering with...as it extends the BBC Kids brand." I don't think Julian Clover is a "hapless media intern" but feel free to prove me wrong.  The transition from in-house to BBC Studios (the commercial arm) which created the current incarnation of the BBC Kids brand has been well covered .  I don't have an argument with Transient-understanding over the benefits of a possible split, but there really is not enough content in the page yet to make that worth doing.  SpinningSpark 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Spinningspark, congratulations (seriously!) – you found a single article that actually does talk about more than one of these channels. I've updated my nomination to point that out. Unfortunately, given that it was written well after this page was created there is a significant chance that exactly what I feared has already happened – intern or no intern. Regardless, we can't base an article on a single source...
 * About the other links you provided: I'd suggest you read past the titles of sources you cite, because they are about BBC kids content in general. They have nothing whatsoever to do with "BBC Kids" as a brand name. Just look at the variety of names the articles use:
 * kids division
 * children's division
 * the BBC’s in-house children’s TV department
 * Kids and Family Productions at BBC Studios
 * BBC Children’s In-House Productions
 * BBC Studios’ Kids & Family
 * BBC Children’s & Education
 * BBC Children
 * Furthermore, they are talking about content and not TV channels, which (despite the WP:COATRACK first sentence of this article, which even tarnished my nomination with its "brand" wording) are what this article is actually about. Modernponderer (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a BBC source that says "BBC Kids" is an international brand, see https://careers.bbcstudios.com/what-we-do. There are also a number of BBC media releases that mention "the multi-territory CBeebies and BBC Kids branded services".Transient-understanding (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Transient-understanding, first of all you haven't provided links to those supposed media releases. (And the one page you did link to could easily be referring to just one channel, most likely the American one.) But even if they exist, they are unusable for this purpose because they are from the BBC itself, not independent as required for reliable sources on Wikipedia. Modernponderer (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the BBC isn't good enough as a source, and third party media stories aren't good enough, good luck finding any sources for any of entries for any of the BBC's services. As for the media releases mentioned, here's a link to one: https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/bbcstudios/2022/princess-mirror-belle-returns-cbbc-november-21Transient-understanding (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Transient-understanding, third-party media sources are exactly what we need here – provided they cover the supposed "international BBC Kids brand" as applied to multiple television channels. So far in this entire discussion, only one questionable link meeting this requirement has been provided, which is not sufficient per the "multiple" requirement of WP:GNG anyways. Modernponderer (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The three news items I gave you at the end are all reporting on changes to senior staff connected with the move of children's TV to BBC Studios. Some of this was prior to the move in preparation for it and certainly before BBC Studios gave a name to the brand.  So of course there is no consistent name until that happened.  That does not stop the sources from being relevant to the article. SpinningSpark 21:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Spinningspark, that is original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. You are interpreting that the media was referring to "BBC Kids". The BBC already has children's brands like CBBC and CBeebies, or maybe no brand was being discussed at all. Therefore, those sources are completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of deleting this page. Modernponderer (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not interpreting. The articles themselves state the connection with the transfer to BBC Studios.  That BBC Studios subsequently branded the product BBC Kids is not SYNTH, it's WP:SKYISBLUE territory. SpinningSpark 14:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Spinningspark, that is so blatantly the opposite of "the sky is blue" territory that I find it very difficult to WP:AGF regarding your contributions here. You simply ignored the multiple examples of other possibilities that I provided... Modernponderer (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The launch in South Africa got a significant amount of press. There's also coverage about the Australia launch. Maybe it could be structured better. Chagropango (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Chagropango, I don't ask this often as it's rarely appropriate but: please strike out your !vote. What you wrote has literally nothing whatsoever to do with WP:SYNTH, or this article frankly. Nobody (including me) is disputing that individual channels can be notable, which is why they have their own articles. Modernponderer (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I don't have a lot of familiarity with WP:SYNTH, but it's very hard for me to see how it could necessitate deletion of an article on a qualifying subject rather than improvement, unless the problems were so deep rooted that WP:TNT would be less work than fixing the issues. However, if you can explain it to me I would be grateful and I would also gladly strike out my !vote. Chagropango (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Chagropango, WP:SYNTH means this is NOT a "qualifying subject". You've correctly pointed out that there are reliable sources for channels in individual countries, but what we need for THIS article are reliable sources covering multiple channels together. Otherwise, we are synthesizing the sources about individual channels to create the Wikipedia-exclusive idea of an "international BBC Kids channel brand". As I pointed out below, this is an issue coming from the sources, not Wikipedia, so it is impossible to fix here and the article must therefore be deleted. Modernponderer (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So is your argument that such a brand in itself is not notable, although the individual instances are? Chagropango (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Chagropango, no! My factual statement (not argument) is that no brand named "BBC Kids" even exists, because the sources are ONLY about individual channels! Modernponderer (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While the comment may not address WP:SYNTH, it does allude that deleting the page would trigger WP:PRESERVE.Transient-understanding (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing to "preserve" from this article. We have individual channel pages for this content. And the problem of WP:SYNTH cannot be "fixed" here, as it comes from outside Wikipedia. The only solution is deletion. Modernponderer (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not already have individual pages for all of the content, and creating them would trigger WP:OVERLAP.Transient-understanding (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Convert to disambiguation page There are only two entities here, each with their own article (nobody should count the U.S. Pluto TV version, that's not a cable channel, nor the South African app), and it's strongly likely the Bahamas and Jamaica got the Canadian version (Canadian network carriage is common in both those nations). The latter can be put in the CA article, and this should plainly be a disambiguation. There was no 'revival' of the original Canadian service as claimed here, so I've changed that heading but do not endorse this article in any manner. Appropriate mention of progammes being made available as VOD/AVOD services in SA/US/TW can be made in a short manner on the CBBC/CBeebies articles (US is already mentioned), but not here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Per above, one possibility is to merge any content worth keeping to other pages, then convert to disambiguation page per Nate. Seems like a great solution, given that both entities already have their own articles already, and it's not 100% clear that they actually belong grouped together as part of a single article. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, I have no problem with the Canadian channel details being removed from here, but there is no other page that covers the various 2021-current services using the "BBC Kids" brand. They are clearly growing in number, and taking different forms in different territories. Giving them individual pages would mean WP:OVERLAP, so why not mention them all here? Transient-understanding (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment They're merely streaming services which air programming drawn from the BBC and thus do not earn articles like their permanent network counterparts, as the services can be pulled without any public notice. Thus, mention in the articles mentioned above is appropriate and proper.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is it worth considering converting this page into a Set index page instead of a Disambiguation page per WP:SETINDEX...? Maybe that addresses concerns on all sides and you could keep any content that has citations? It strikes me that Set index pages are an underused option. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable subdivision of the BBC. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that its division opened in locations that are so disparate are a clear sign it is notable.   scope_creep Talk  18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK that's it, I'm obviously being trolled so goodbye WP:AGF – what a relief! Now let me make some things crystal clear:
 * THERE IS NO SUCH "DIVISION" AS "BBC KIDS". THIS IS A FABRICATION OF WIKIPEDIA.
 * NOT A SINGLE SOURCE (including the one that was found here) MAKES THIS CLAIM.
 * @User:Stifle and @User:scope_creep: unless both of you want to get reported for spreading WP:Hoaxes – as I am this close to doing now that AGF has been shattered – I strongly suggest that you strike out your votes immediately (not !votes as you clearly didn't treat them as such).
 * Note to the closer: If factually false votes such as these are not disregarded, it implies your support for hoaxes on Wikipedia (and all the consequences that supporting a type of vandalism implies). Modernponderer (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen this comment but do not consider it to be in good faith or meriting of a response. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a page reviewer and it comes with various extra search functions as part of that. One of them is Google CSE. You can set this up yourself. When you do a search on Google CSE it comes with reams of coverage. The same with Google news. When you look at one of these references, for example, one their news site, BBC Studios Kids & Family announces new senior appointments to help accelerate growth it states clearly "BBC Kids branded services and on leading content platforms around the world." which likely verifies the term. Its not the most salubrious ref but it shows the division exists, perhaps its some type of management structure for the bbc childrens brand. I'm not in the business of providing hoaxes on Wikipedia. Your comment approaches WP:BLUDGEON territory.   scope_creep Talk  20:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If a page is so grossly, obscenely out of line with Wikipedia policy that it must be deleted without delay, no tool in one's toolbox is off-limits. Call it "bludgeoning" if you want, but it is a point of pride, not a fault, to actually stand up for Wikipedia policy instead of going like most of the participants here – "It's from the BBC, and WP:IKNOWIT (the BBC, not the non-existent "brand"), so obviously the article should be kept!" – without actually reading the reason for deletion, as explained in great detail in this discussion (as if the nomination weren't clear enough).
 * And it does seem that latter point applies to you, as your source comes with the following problems:
 * It is from the BBC itself, and therefore prohibited to use for the purpose of deciding whether to have a standalone article on a subject (per WP:N's requirement of independent sources). Seriously, what is it doing here? You're an experienced editor, so how do you not know that? And as if to add insult to injury, that's after I've already explained this exact point earlier in this discussion... do you see why this really looks like trolling?
 * Even this unusable source does not call "BBC Kids" a "division"! That is the part I'm calling a hoax, made up in this very deletion discussion in fact. Modernponderer (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No one said BBC Kids is a division of the BBC. The company is BBC Studios (not BBC the corporation), the department is BBC Kids & Family (it has a department head so, duh, it is a department), and one of their brands is BBC Kids. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.