Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup

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 no consensus. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters; I think everything I said there applies here as well, which is:

There's clear consensus that this shouldn't be deleted outright (which is mostly what AfD is about). Opinion is split between keeping as is, renaming, or several possible merges. That can be worked out on the article talk pages.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup[edit]

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

Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just, I don't see the notability here. Yes, the trio within the series has become a pop culture icon. The series, along with comics, its anime spinoff, and the reboot, has come a long, long way. The series is notable, but the characters? Not so much. I'd suggest a merge with one of the relevant articles. Paper Luigi T • C 23:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with merge myself if I didn’t do research BUT agree to disagree google was my friend on this one. Jhenderson 777 04:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that contravenes a merge. The article is relatively short, and the proposed merge target is relatively short. Obviously, the stars would be at the top of the page. No information would be lost, just moved to one place. bd2412 T 05:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily true. You’re just not caring that much. There is room for improvement as proven for the sources. Making an merge unnecessary. The revision history needs to stay where it’s at instead of annoyingly redirected with the same info that can be improved by being split off. Also I already noticed one IP complain how there is an Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls) article but not for the main characters when there wasnt one on the girls. I feel that readers will be confused as to why there is an article on Bliss but not of the main characters. It will make so sense to have a Bliss article without having one for the other Powerpuff Girls too. Jhenderson 777 05:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also not true if the characters pass Wp: GNG which I am trying my best to prove HERE because I have no time to edit articles yet. Jhenderson 777 05:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "Buttercup, Bubbles, and Blossom share something else with their animated descendants: massive merchandising possibility. The three sisters with their vibrant colors and minimalist designs were begging to be turned into toys, plushies, and plastered on t-shirts, and they were. In fact, within two years there were video games, a feature length film, lunchboxes, and even Powerpuff branded dishware."See here: https://www.bustle.com/articles/85657-what-would-the-powerpuff-girls-be-doing-and-wearing-as-grown-ups-in-2015.Jhenderson 777 04:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How’s this for critical reception? The Powerpuff Girls was one of the staples of my childhood TV schedule. I loved the idea of a group of girl superheroes that could save the day. Not only were they girls, they were in kindergarten and young enough that I could relate to them on a deeper level. They were young girls who dealt with normal kid stuff during the day but were still able to kick the butts of monsters and super villains that threatened their city. The three main characters had diverse personalities and it was common for the audience to see themselves in at least one of them. Jhenderson 777 04:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources along with character reception are already present in the main articles (new and old series) as are descriptions of the three main characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Move. I agree in general that the trio of characters are not individually notable from the television show(s), which of course is clearly notable. The existing character list seems like a good place to add this info. --Masem (t) 05:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not see the handful of sources I can use to pass to make it prove Wp: GNG? I guess tomorrow I will be busy on improving this article. An AFD was an irresponsible move anyway as it could have been an merge request. Jhenderson 777 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split I think all three characters are notable for their own article honestly. I think an article can exist for the group as well but maybe under the name Powerpuff Girls (team), then info about all the other characters that have been Powerpuff girls can be covered to. But the first course of action I think should be to give the three main characters their separate articles which would allow for more focus.★Trekker (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sourced already in the article, and those mentioned above by Jhenderson777 per Wikipedia:NEXIST. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to The Powerpuff Girls - On face value it may look like this article is well sourced but information was merely copied and pasted from The Powerpuff Girls article (which is GA rated). Every source in this article is also present on the main series page, this is not a coincidence. The rest of the lengthy info is fan fluff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not true. There is new info and sources that aren’t used on the other Wikipedia page. This is assumption of bad faith to assume that they are copied and pasted. Also stop ignoring Wikipedia:NEXIST and WP:Imperfect. Jhenderson 777 01:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not bad faith, look for yourself....every source in the article is from the original series page. There is also WP:NOTINHERITED to keep in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look again at my keep comments. That is not Wp: Inherited. Also I paid attention. there is only four borrowed sources Try again! Jhenderson 777 02:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok a lot of sources seem to be used that are already in the article. But still some were added. Also still there are a handful of other sources not yet used. But let’s keep ignoring that. Some of what was talked about belongs here more because the article of the Powerpuff Girls is talking about what is not in the show and also the girls being ranked as top cartoon characters by TV Guide primary subject still belongs here more than the parent article.Jhenderson 777 02:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the articles overlap way too much.... The line "The TV Guide chose the Powerpuff Girls as No. 13 in a list of the 50 Greatest cartoon characters of all time." referencing the TV guide is present under the "Critical reception" section of the original series article and is also present in the "Reception" section at Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup. The name of "Buttercup" originally known as "Bud" is present in the original series article under "characters" while in Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup it is present under "Buttercup". The article would need a complete rewrite for things not already included elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per bd2412. This probably should have been a merge request as the notability isn't really in doubt, just the notability for a standalone article. SportingFlyer talk 03:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect From what I see in the article, it is 80% unreferenced fancruft which must be removed. And the article immediately becomes small and mergeable. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little administrator note. If merged I would like a draft on it. I feel if I have time to use the sources that I used and see what the source on the Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls) have the the three fictional girls should maybe have their own individual articles without it being a trio article. (Going with what Treker said.) But I just don’t have the time and willpower for now with it being a holiday season and all. Jhenderson 777 00:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the main characters in a very significant franchise (the main article is mid-importance on WPTV, high on Animation), yes they are notable. In general, we need to be careful of WP:NOTINHERITED but even the article's current sources show specific commentary on the characters themselves, not just the show as a whole. I think some commentors here need reminding that Deletion is not cleanup, and though we need some plot trimming and expansion of the Creation and conception and Reception sections, the subjects are notable. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is adequately sourced, and that proves to be surprisingly poor, at least so far, to the List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. -The Gnome (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters and rename to List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. Even if there is independent notability, the current content is still of such insufficient length to justify a separate article and can be sufficiently contained within a single article. If it does become significantly longer at some point in time, they can always be WP:SPLIT into a separate article in the future. —Madrenergictalk 16:48, 26 December 2018 (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/Blossom,_Bubbles_and_Buttercup&oldid=875498440"