Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Po (Kung Fu Panda)


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Po (Kung Fu Panda)

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

Article doesn't seems to be notable. I can't find sources to prove the character's notability nor do the sources listed provide any in depth or significant coverage. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Kung Fu Panda characters. Basically fancruft as it stands now. No prejudice towards recreation if actual reliable sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify Article itself is notable as a (popular) animation's protagonist. More sources can be provided in draftspace. Redirect+Merge can also be possible. Timothytyy (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 1, 2, 3 academic sources. There are more... and for the life of me I have no idea why. Yet, there they are, and contain a diverse set of views of Po (and the other KFP characters) to write decent encyclopedia articles. Thus, it's an editing issue, and I appreciate that no one has seriously suggested the article be deleted, which would clearly be inappropriate regardless of the current state of the article. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG. Wish people did basic BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:ITSNOTABLE without actual proof of such, maybe try adding the sources to the article instead of making statements like "it's OBVIOUSLY notable" without evidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone else (like me) posted sources before the comment, it would be AGFing to assume that the comment is referencing the other sources previously posted. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Jclemens has provided academic papers that studied Kung Fu Panda which also covers the character Po. While I can't access #2 and #3 papers, I believe they also study about Po, thus has WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Number 2 I was able to reach with no login, but it may be region-restricted. Number 3 I have access to through a university library. Let me know if you need any quotes or anything. There are plenty of less-good references in the academic literature; these looked solid and diverse from each other. Again, I have no idea why anyone thinks KFP is a great topic of academic investigation, but a lot of authors from Indian universities seem to think it is. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cloudfront URL gives me Access Denied error, but the DOI works. I believe you've verified #3 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - protagonist of beloved and popular children's media. Basic fail. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2023 (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.