Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barbie's friends and family (2nd nomination)

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. Keeping the family tree for Barb. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barbie's friends and family[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the major characters that have been covered in reliable secondary sources already have articles. This is a collection of the rest of the characters, who do not meet the WP:GNG because they do not have any independent sourcing covering their reception. A few of them have trivial mentions as products that went on sale which isn't WP:SIGCOV. Compiling them into one list doesn't do anything to resolve the notability issue. Jontesta (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: You say "This is a collection of the rest of the characters, who do not meet the WP:GNG because they do not have any independent sourcing covering their reception". Do you mean that the lack of a reception section and the lack of sources currently in the article is what makes it fail GNG? If so, you misunderstand what WP:GNG says. Per WP:Notability:

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.

Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Additionally, a list can be notable even if the individual contents of the list are not. Per WP:LISTN:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable.

Nominating multiple articles because the current structure, writing, or sourcing are lacklustre is not constructive editing. Bare in mind that not all problems are AfD problems. Dark knight 2149 10:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of these have links to their own articles for these notable toys. The section Real-world celebrity and movie character doll friends is notable, it listing which famous people got made into Barbie dolls. Notable franchise. This doesn't just list every doll they ever created though, there are some characters on the list that were only on a digital series meant to advertise the products. Did they exist in any other media before then? Dream Focus 14:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NavjotSR (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, which says that a list is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are many nonfiction books about the history of Barbie, including the subsidiary characters. A couple examples: Barbie Forever: Her Inspiration, History, and Legacy (2019) and The Story of Barbie Doll (1999). The article should certainly be improved, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not impact the notability of the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A list of characters seems helpful - this could be either kept or merged with the main article, but it is long enough keeping a separate entry seems warranted, and there are some other lists like this out there - or at least I'd hope so, as frankly I couldn't find anything reliable. So I cannot honestly justify voting keep, since my argument is WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I can't get proper view of the sources Toughpigs listed, so I am unsure if they contain lists or some helpful coverage of the minor characters. But anyway, I'd rename this list to List of Barbie's characters. Friends and family is weird. No enemies, frenemies, acquaintances, really? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to that, it might be a good idea to split this out into different toy lines should the lines themselves be notable. The list of celebrities doesn't really belong in a general character list, but a different list of celebrity Barbie dolls might have the sources needed to stand alone. I'd say it should ultimately be trimmed down to the core characters to be included in the main article, but pure deletion is probably not the answer in this case. TTN (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, renaming is a good idea. Spudlace (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - article does need to be rewritten but that can be done through editing and not AFD. There is a notable fictional lore around Barbie accumulated over decades if someone can be bothered to organize it. Archrogue (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2020 (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.