Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baloo


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (Non-Admin Closure). Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review

Baloo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable characters, mostly unsourced. Kit has two sources at least, but I doubt that's enough. Articles are also in-universe, and confused because all the characters except Kit are also different characters in The Jungle Book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed Kit per suggestion on IRC. Another user thinks that they might be able to improve his article at least. Or at the least it can be merged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Non-notable??? YMBFJ. Baloo is a MAJOR character in Kipling's Jungle Books. If there are to be articles on individual Jungle Book characters then this one must be kept. Lee M (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all I find it unspeakably odd that the one character who wasn't in "The Jungle Book" was removed from this nomination. JuJube (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The only reason Kit Cloudkicker got removed from the nomination is that he is the only one I know anything about, and the only one I can do anything about to make it into a decent article. As for the rest, Merge into the jungle book article or Keep as separates. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all non-notable!!! I can only assume you've suffered some kind of mental aberration. A lack of sourcing isn't a reason to delete patently obvious notable fictional characters. We're not talking about sodding Pokemon here. RMHED (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all, these are some of the most notable fictional characters there are. If the article is in universe, rewrite it. And WP:N is not a policy by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from what's noted above, Baloo is used (perhaps adapted, I'm not that familiar with the Jungle Book) by the Cub Scouts in the USA, in which he is a major figure in the program. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Baloo is an obvious keep, and the others seem notable. With all due respect, TPH, this nom wasn't very well thought-out. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all par Pixelface and Stifle's comments. Europe22 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. King Louie has three references to academic books describing the cultural impact of the character - exactly what is asked for to show notability of a fictional character. How did the nominator miss that? I'm sure similar references could easily be found for the others, as they are two of the leading characters in the Jungle Book. It also seems strange that the nominator withdrew the least notable of these characters from the nomination but persisted with the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Iconic characters from a classic piece of literature; they'd be notable even if they were created for the Disney movie. 23skidoo (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question for nominator. What do you mean by "also" in "all the characters except Kit are also different characters in The Jungle Book"? What else are they? I think that it's you who are confused here, not the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All Obviously notable.  Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.