Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Barber


 * 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 after four weeks of discussion, defaulting to keep. Michig (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Little Miss Barber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author Contested PROD : Non Notable advertising character, unable to find ANY reliable sources that cover this in any detail.  LGA talk  edits   12:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as author. Not only notable as the subject of a significant advertising campaign of past times, but also as a common ghost sign in its home region today. Additional sources undoubtedly exist, but are likely to be in local archives, not online. This is exactly the kind of stub that will grow into a good article in time, per WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, historic significance, with potential to grow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 23:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete - A Google search ' "Little Miss Barber" -Wikipedia ' found only a few hits such as blog or forum postings, ebay, facebook, etc., and the two sources listed in the article, a personal website and a user-contributed photo collection. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The character isn't notable. I couldn't find any sources whatsoever when I searched. You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NODEADLINE to mean that you can have articles on non-notable subjects in the mainspace so that they may one day become notable. Even if there were sources from online archives, they should have been added while the article was being created, not afterward. T  C  N7 JM  01:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I attempted a search using google, google images and following links to the pages where images were hosted, news, and books, and it does not appear that there is much information about this character. As previously mentioned there are only a couple posts available including facebook, and a blog post re: ghostsigns. The character does not appear to be notable. An alternative place for "little miss barber" to be inserted into wikipedia might be with an addition to the article Sign painting as that article talks about how old painted signs are a thing of the past. Just a thought. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems that the character started out with Barber's Tea but was later dopted by other companies - perhaps because they acquired the brand. In any case,there are lot's of Little Miss Barber collectible's being bought and sold online and I would imagine there is a reference to the character in a book somewhere that is worth searching for. If the consensus is to delete, I would hope that userfication is allowed while references are sought. An opportunity to document the history of the character is enticing and it would be a pity to lose the information to history. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:57, 18 August 2013 (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.