Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Bogtrotter

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Matilda (novel). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bogtrotter[edit]

Bruce Bogtrotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional character, written in-universe. Doesn't even deserve a merge IMO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • DeleteFails WP:N. No notability other than being a fictional character in a book. Why clutter Wikipedia with little stub articles about every character in a book and what happens to them in the book, if no reliable and independentt secondary sources have given them substantial coverage? Edison (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, right. Have you considered thinking of making it a little bit more notable BY MAKING IT LONGER? Here at Wikipedia, I take pride in my work. Just leave it there and I'll (try to) find the actual novel and then I'll try to make longer. Get it? RoryReloaded (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finding the novel won't help the article's notability, as increasing the length is irrelevant. What you need to find are multiple, independent, third-party sources explaining the notability of this character beyond simply being a fictional character. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Matilda (novel). Reyk YO! 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Reyk. There isn't a Characters section there and quite frankly I don't think it needs one, but if you can get consensus on the talk page I won't object. JuJube (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. The article is just a few lines of insignificant plot details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable minor character. If I remember correctly (its been a while since I've read it), he's a very minor character only used in a singe chapter, so is not likely to have or develop any third-party notability or verifiability. Horselover Frost (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notability and substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article is a mere day old and has already improved since creation on only 5 September, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing points made above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no adequate assertion of notability. No prejudice against a merge or redirect to the book. sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, I recognized the name, although it took me a moment to realize that it was the kid in the film Matilda who ate a giant cake. No, I don't think there should be a Wikipedia article about the kid in the film Matilda who ate a giant cake. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

  • Article has now been rescued and demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I still don't think this meets the WP:N requirements. Merging fine too. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is insane - who would want to delete an article that has something to do with an extremely popular book? Come on... RoryReloaded (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, me, for one, and I'm not insane. We have an article about an extremely popular book. It's called Matilda (novel) and there's room in that article even for Brucie Bogtrotter. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's insane that this article, and others like it, are kept. They provide no educational information to anyone. This is an example of a non-notable stock character from a kid's book. It is completely in-universe and contains no reliable sources. Quoting two children book authors is not providing reliable sources. We need a source not connected with the writing scene. I.E., we need a source that does not quote another children's book author. I don't even know why this was flagged for rescue. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN minor character. Move one cited sentence to Matilda article.Yobmod (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've edited it, improved the formatting and made it more user friendly, a sort of half-rescue. We should give the article a chance for now, and hope that RoryReloaded does give a bit more indication of notability, as opposed to calling us all 'insane.' J. Thompson (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bruce_Bogtrotter&oldid=1137655568"