Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob the Builder (character)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bob the Builder (character)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Currently the entry on List of Bob the Builder characters is sufficient - no indication of independent notability is provided in this content fork, which makes the article fail WP:NFICTION. Furthermore, this article is unsourced and has less content than the entry on the aforementioned list. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bob The Builder - Better explained in the article for the series itself. Koridas  ( Speak ) 16:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no good description of the character in the other pages and, even if there were, this was not be a reason to delete. The character is the star of the show and is remarkably popular.  They are therefore comparable with Captain Kirk, Batman, Sherlock Holmes and other iconic characters, for which we have separate pages. The page in question is new and so just a stub but there is plenty of material to support expansion such as Barbie meets Bob the Builder at the Workstation; William of Sen to Bob the Builder: non‐cognate cultural perceptions of constructors; "Can we fix it?": Bob the Builder as a discursive resource for children, &c.  Relevant policies include WP:IMPERFECT; WP:BITE and WP:ATD.  Can we fix it?  Yes, we can ... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep People are likely to search for this term, and it seems reasonable they will expect an article on it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Bob the Builder characters which has more content than this page. I would not be surprised if someone eventually writes a better article about this character, in which case we can have a separate article about the character, but the article as of now is only one sentence long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are now five sentences and counting. Such expansion is not achieved by deletion or redirection as they tend to disrupt constructive activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my recommendation due to the recent changes to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the additions by Andrew Davidson, this article is now better than the entry at the list article, and while the sources currently in the article are still a little iffy on whether they pass GNG, it is clear that there is enough coverage out there to pass it. This: is just one example of that coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Bob the Builder characters. So little content on what is the eponymous (and therefore the main) character in this childrens series. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, here are some sources that may be used to improve the article on this notable subject: "William of Sen to Bob the Builder: non‐cognate cultural perceptions of constructors", "Is it real? The development of judgments about authenticity and ontological status", "What We Can Learn From ‘Bob the Builder’", and lots of sources about the change to the character: "Bob the Builder gets a makeover with new look and voice", "Fans outraged over Bob the Builder's new look", "Bob The Builder didn't need fixing, says cartoon character's creator", (note: these sources were found after a 10min basic gsearch, it took me longer to make this "comment" - apologies if they're not all deemed useable). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable per significant coverage in sources identified above. In addition to these, the book Marketing by Reynolds & Lancaste has this character-centric vignette here. It also looks like more details here:, , , . There's also quite a bit of press discussing the character's redesign in 2014. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to List_of_Bob_the_Builder_characters. Of course the main character of the show is notable, but that does not mandate its own article. Even with the expansion a split is not warranted: the list is there for the exact reason of being able to expand on each character, including the sources presented, without needing separate pages. "People will search for this" is not a valid reason to keep an article. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources identified here, which indicate subject passes WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 16:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Material in this article wouldn't fit in the other one. Enough referenced material to meet the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified. I think that the negative coverage of the 2014 redesign are especially relevant in determining the character's notability; that's coverage that is directly about the character itself rather than the show or franchise. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to List_of_Bob_the_Builder_characters per MOS:TVCAST ("not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and far fewer will deserve an individual article"). I fail to see how EIGHT lines of article content make this deserve a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOSSIBLE, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Your argument contradicts the notability guideline. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article in its current state warrants notability tag, BUT sources identified above by Coolabahapple show the topic is notable. 1) This has several paragraphs, through reading them it seems the discussion of the show and the character is very intertwined (PSA: use Library Genesis to read the article if you struggle with non-OA sources). 2) is not in-depth and uses the character just as a semi-random example for study whether kids can confuse real world with fictional, it does not discuss the show or the character. So those are the fail. And I want to explicitly address the part of the article recently added sourced to one of them that states "The character of Bob the Builder has helped to change negative stereotypes of construction workers among children." The source article DOES NOT make it clear if it refers to BtB a character, or BtB the show. BtB helped change the stereotypes, but BtB the show and BtB the character are very hard to distinguish in this context. But the rest of the sources do seem do discuss the character, due to their 'makeover' from mid-2010s. It's borderline, but I think that this can be kept due to the discussion of this one aspect of the character, since we do have 2+ RS on this (and more can be easily found:, , . All that said, I do wonder if in this case there is much separation between the show and the character. Essentially, it's a WP:ONEVENT type of coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.