Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tayo the Little Bus


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Tayo the Little Bus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Only references are to YouTube and official sites. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As someone who has been battling multiple crufters/vandalizers on this article for months, this show has some notability, but it has yet to really air in Western markets and looks unlikely to break through (definitely asking for some of our contributors on ko.wikipedia to help out here, if the nom could add that tag as a South Korean-interest article). It can be rescued, but only with more eyes getting it up to snuff. But without much access to the source material I can't fill it out much more than the character description list, where trying to keep out the fact that one of the anthropomorphic buses has stomach gas issues is among the things I have to deal with here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Are Australia and New Zealand not Western countries any more? It has been showing here on Pay TV from over a year. Are you someone from the US suffering Systemic_bias? Wikipedia says of YouTube -Reliable_source_examples: "However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher." The YouTube channel linked to is the official one from the production company (Iconix Entertainment) and therefore acceptable at least as a secondary source. Since this is a show for children, not adults, I think the admin who marked this for deletion is suffering from a lack of WP:NPOV? The YouTube channel shows that is is very popular with one episode having over 24 millions views. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about subjects that fewer than 10 people would care about. The article as I found it had very few references. I decided to seek them out and found that the show had an official YouTube channel and began adding them as links before Mdann52 section blanked the work I and others had done. When I reverted he then marked it for deletion! That comes across as childish (ironic really) and violation of Civility and WP:DNB. Is he liked around here? Also after both his actions he didn't make a single statement in the Talk page of the article to explain or justify himself. The article when I came across it was a bit of a mess of poorly structured sentences and broken english, however details for the characters were well filled out by past contributors. I thought it would be fun to work on an article and improve it. Mdann52 has certainly made sure it was not fun and not worth my time if he continues to act like this --Lonew8 (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but the issue here is the article appears to fail WP:GNG, which official sites fail to show. We need 3rd party citations to demonstrate this. Also, just because a programme is airing does not make it notable. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found a third party Episode Guide for the show: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/tayo-the-little-bus/episodes/577643 So you want to integrate the information there into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonew8 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 3 November 2014‎
 * While I believe that tvguide.com is considered a reliable source, I don't think that it can be used to confer notability. What we really need here, is an article or interview that contains some kind of Production or Reception information. I'll look around though, and see if I can find anything. --Jpcase (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - using youtube as a source of citations, original interest, not notable. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete until valid third party sources can be located to properly substantiate an article. This page has a very long history of vandalism and general misinformation and despite multiple requests going on several years now, there has yet to be a single reliable third party source presented which documents this subject?  Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Substantial changes have been made to improve the article. What to do with the character listing(s) is an editorial decision at this point.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - while sources in Korean might exist, none have ever been presented. There's one third-party source in the Korean article, but it's an interview in a publication that doesn't strike me as particularly reliable, and it doesn't discuss the show in any detail, either. Without reliable third-party sources that cover the show, the article is unsalvageable. Huon (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I literally only had to go through the first page of Google search results before finding this article from the Korean government's official website, this  article from the Wall Street Journal, and this  article from the Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun. Meanwhile, Google News returned this  article from The Korean Bizwire and this  article from a Vietnamese news site. Note that all of these are English-language sources. Please, let's try to do at least a minimal amount of research before nominating an article for deletion or even casting a vote in a deletion nomination. --Jpcase (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What do all of those sources combined say about the series? Very little. There's a strong indication that the show is indeed notable, but the current article would have to be rewritten almost entirely, and we'll need better sources than those. It wouldn't be more difficult to write an all-new article than to try and salvage the current one, and until someone actually does the effort, we need not keep the current version. Huon (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would the article have to be "rewritten almost entirely"? The content already contained in the article looks fine to me. The character list should maybe be trimmed, and I'm sure that a few changes could be made here or there, but nothing seems drastically wrong with the article. I have to disagree that deleting the article and letting it be recreated at a later date would be just as good as trying to salvage the current one. Not everyone is going to be interested in trying to create a full-fledged quality article from scratch, but a variety of different editors are likely to make small improvements over the course of time - they won't be able to do this if the article no longer exists. --Jpcase (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on finding more sources and cleaning up the article. I stopped looking or working on the article after Mdann52 marked the article for deletion. No-one wants to put in time of something that might just be deleted on someone's whim. I explained in my post why it was marked for deletion: "[I] .. began adding them as links before Mdann52 section blanked the work I and others had done. When I reverted he then marked it for deletion! That comes across as childish (ironic really) and violation of Civility and WP:DNB." The problem with some voices here is a lack of an neutral viewpoint. This is a show for toddlers. Maybe need a few toddlers editing Wikipedia, and not just people who act like toddlers? -Lonew8 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA may be worth a read, unless you can show how I'm acting like a toddler. I nominated the article for deletion as notability is not shown, as per my rational at the start, not to bite you or anything. A long list of characters, meanwhile, is not sutable for Wikipedia, full stop. I was considering nominating the article for deletion even without the extra content you added; WP:N is a policy, not a guideline, so nominating for deletion is entirely appropriate. I did do WP:BEFORE, but my searches failed to find anything significant; However, my knowledge of Korean sources are poor, so bringing to AfD is often the best way to have notability reviewed wider. IMO, from what I saw it was not notable, but if it is, then I'm sure the result will reflect this. -- Mdann  52   talk to me!  14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I call you a toddler? I said of your actions "That comes across as childish" and I stand by that. You blanked most of the article, I reverted, in response you marked it for deletion without a single comment on the article's Talk page. That appears to be childish to me. You have said "A long list of characters, meanwhile, is not sutable [sic] for Wikipedia, full stop." on that basis you should go the article Yo_Gabba_Gabba! and blank the section on "Regular segments". The list is long and also unreferenced. Plenty of TV show articles on Wikipedia have long lists of minor characters. They are relevant to the show, so relevant to an article on the show. Check out List of past Coronation Street characters! Will you mark that article for deletion?

I've started to incorporate the information from those references into the article. Let me know what you think, but to me, it seems highly notable that the series was tied into a successful government campaign and has influenced prominent South Korean politicians. I'll take you at your word that you looked for refs before nominating the article for deletion, and I agree that this kind of process can be helpful for articles. All the same, it seems strange to me that none of the above-mentioned refs showed up in your search. They've been around for several months, and as I said, were contained on the first page of search results. I'll leave it at that though. It's not in my interest to criticize anyone over this. I sympathize with you, as its never fun to have your work reverted or nominated for deletion. I had multiple articles put through this process in my early days on Wikipedia. But it happens, and as Mdann52 has explained, this article didn't meet the Notability Guidelines at the time. It probably would have been better had Mdann52 discussed things with you on a talk page first, but let's just try to move on from that. Whether Mdann52's actions were "childish" or not, keeping things civil is always the best way to go. The article is referenced now. I strongly feel that notability has been demonstrated. That's what is important. --Jpcase (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Has anyone here actually seen the show? I'm reworking the "Characters" section, and there are quite a lot of supporting characters listed. Are all of these necessary? We only need to mention characters that recur regularly throughout the series, not characters that have only appeared once or twice. --Jpcase (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not able to watch it on YouTube or don't have HuluPlus? Watch it with a child like I did if you can :-). Based on memory of seeing the first season twice, I have organised the Supporting Character section by importance. Are we able to reference fan wikis, or don't they meet WP guideline (from memory they don't)? Lonew8 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I won't have the time to actually watch the series myself. The exact order in which the supporting characters are named isn't crucial, but do you remember whether all of the characters listed appear at least more than twice? That should be the cut-off I think, except in cases where a character that only appears once or twice is exceptionally significant for some reason - e.g. Cito's mentor Bubba. As for fan wikis, no they don't meet the guidelines, nor does pretty much any other type of fan site. --Jpcase (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Much improved article. Artw (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — current citations clearly show cultural relevance and notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 November 2014 (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.