Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas the tank engine and autism


 * 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   delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas the tank engine and autism

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

This article is a spinoff from Thomas_and_Friends, but the expansion relies entirely on unreliable sources (blogs, a non-peer-reviewed study published only be the organization that funded it, an anecdotal book written by a woman with no medical/etc background - only qualification is her role as mother of an autistic child). There appear to be no reliable sources available to augment the content. I don't think that this is a likely search term, so probably not good for a merge. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, essay-like, unreliably sourced. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I honestly had never heard of this, and wouldn't think of "Thomas the Tank Engine" and "autism" being mentioned in the same sentence, but there is ample evidence from books and news reports  and scholarly journals  to show that there are plenty of verifiable and reliable sources out there.  Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't that be merged to the existing section then?  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are a lot of passing mentions of autism and Thomas the Tank Engine in the same book/article, but it is a very popular toy, and there don't appear to be any in-depth scientific articles that actually look at the connection between the two, rather than just using Thomas as an example. This is not my area of expertise, but that is the impression I got from perusing the google results. 16:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs)

Delete This article is based on two thoroughly unscientific polls conducted by a support group. The first survey included an unimpressive 81 participants; the second survey was supported by the company that owns the Thomas franchise, and explicitly recruited participants interested in Thomas, irreparably skewing the results from the outset. The first survey was conducted in 2001; since 2001, the support group has been "the exclusive charity partner of Thomas and Friends", through which it has raised nearly a million dollars by selling co-branded merchandise. This is marketing, not scientific research. Maralia (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous comments. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that there probably isn't enough reliably-sourced material to contribute to an article on this subject. The section within the Thomas article should be sufficient. Both Google Books and Google Scholar show that Thomas is frequently mentioned in the literature on Autism. There probably is a special relationship, though this is becoming self-fulfilling through the promotion of Thomas by the NAS. As an example, Charlotte Moore wrote in the Guardian (prior to the two NAS studies), "In young autists an absorption in the works of the late, great Rev W Awdry is almost universal. George, my older autistic son,...". That, together with some of the material on the NAS website, would constitute reliable sources that there is anecdotal evidence of a relationship. In addition, the NAS material is reliable on the fact that they conducted two surveys and claim to have discovered certain things. It is also a reliable source on their opinions about the putative link. We know nothing much about the first study other than its small size. The second study was really badly conducted. I found the link to it on Archive.org (but sadly not the study questions). In April/May/June 2007, their homepage said
 * Take part in our Thomas & Friends online survey Calling all parents! Does your child have autism? Does he/she love Thomas & Friends? If the answer to these questions is 'yes!', please take part in The National Autistic Society's new Thomas & Friends survey!
 * At least they reported the results accurately on their August homepage
 * Parents give Thomas & Friends the thumbs up for children with autism A new survey commissioned by The National Autistic Society reveals that 99% of parents who took part ranked the Thomas & Friends character top of the toys, followed by Bob the Builder.
 * Sadly, the "who took part" bit is the problem. Therefore, there appears to be no serious scholarly documentation on autistic children preferring Thomas over similar stories/toys. Colin°Talk 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are not reliable. Tenuous connection. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, we shouldn't be writing articles around Voodoo polls, and there is very little there worthy of merging. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maralia makes a fair assessment of the sources used in the article. If there really were a strong connection we would be seeing a huge outcry. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An outcry about what and against whom? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not like vaccines. The article may not have made it clear, but it bears pointing out that Thomas the Tank Engine is a television show.  The article does not say that Thomas the Tank Engine causes autism, nor that there has been an outcry of any sort.  However, I have heard complaints that the merchandise is over-priced and that the show can be irritating to watch. Mandsford (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge what is backed up by non-blog sources ( I see a book and some organization's websites ) back to Thomas_and_Friends, and heavily condense, i.e. put one of these sources on every adjective. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The org website presents the voodoo poll, which doesn't make it any more reliable, or in conformance with WP:MEDRS. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - my concern is the reifying of the connection by an article. The sources are not independent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mansford, or merge as suggested. The content appears to be useful, notable, and verifiable by independent sources. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 15 December 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.