Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls)[edit]

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

Notability and content forking violations. Not a major character, only appears in five episodes and is little more than a publicity stunt. Subsequently, most press coverage is of the promotional variety. The character already has an entry on the show's character list, which I feel is more than adequate given none of the other characters, many of which span all three versions of the franchise, have individual articles. Reception section should be merged into the show's reception and rewritten as a critique of the entire storyline.

The article, in general, is not what I'd consider to be encyclopedic. Looking at the edit log, the article's creator appears to not be acting in good faith, often reverting factually correct and useful additions with rude comments seemingly to suit their own personal agenda. All in all, this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I see no reason why this should be on Wikipedia. This is an article about a minor character. Even the major characters on this show do not have their own articles. Bias is also apparent here; the reception section explains positive responses in detail, while only vaguely mentioning negative responses. ~Wekpidea

The above comment was removed by User:Wekpidea, who has decided to argue for keep (see below). I've restored the comment and struck it out; removing comments from AfDs is not good practice. A Train^talk 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of coverage in reliable sources which examines the character and the reaction to them before and after the episodes came out. The argument that the content should be merged with the shows reception is weak because it ignores that the sources focus of the character not the series. The accusation of bias is also the most ridiculous accusation I have heard, the section I wrote is described overwhelmingly mixed reactions from audiences and critics and if you don't like it you can rewrite it. The things I have revetred were bad edits that I got tired of correcting everyone who ignored the souces or were just adding in universe nonsense, this is also not a reason to delete an article anyway.★Trekker (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have next to zero individual character pages. Most of them are fluff that is only relevant to fans of the material in question. Perfect for a Wikia, not Wikipedia. Bliss appears in just 5 episodes of Powerpuff Girls. Because of the show's episode length, that means she's only relevant for about 45 minutes of material. She's not even a particularly notable character within the context of the franchise, so I don't see how she's notable enough to justify her own page. Given how her five episode run ends, I suspect you're not going to be given much additional material to work with in the future.Again, the returning characters, who've appeared in almost every episode across all three iterations of the show do not have a page. Characters that are unimportant in-universe could warrant an article if they strike a large amount of real world reaction, but I really don't see that here. I see a lot of promotional pieces and a small handful of critiques. Small enough that critique could (and should) be rolled into the main article about this specific series.

Your behaviour is worth pointing out when you're the article's creator, main editor and likely will be its main defender in this discussion. It indicates the article was created in bad faith. Your contributions have almost exclusively been limited to the reception section and you've prevented attempts from filling the rest of the article up with content. Go look at any usual character page on Wikipedia. Most of them are heavy on the characterization. You have previously written edit summaries calling the work done by others "dumb" and have told people to "stop adding dumb plot shit here." Most egregiously, in my opinion, was when you reverted an edit that swapped out a regional voice actor (who doesn't have a Wikipedia article) for the one used in the place of the show's creation (who does have a Wikipedia article). Not only was your response of, "So. Find. A. Source. That. Says. That." incredibly immature, it was also incorrect. That edit was cited and the source, which you actually added to the article, states three actresses have played the role regionally in English. Bizzarely, you seem to have acknowledged that by saying "you know it's possible to have multiple actresses mentioned in an infobox, huh?" You know that in the time it took you to chastize a good faith edit you could've done that yourself? Couple that with this some bizzare language in the article and it becomes clear this article wasn't written, or even intended to be written, with a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view would've probably told you that if the triplets who star in almost every single episode don't have individual articles, neither should their one-off (hey, they premeired those 5 episodes as one "TV special") publicity stunt older sister.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprising myself here—I fully expected to end up arguing to delete or redirect when I saw the heading. But after reading the article, this subject seems to definitely pass the WP:GNG. The nominator says that this is "not a major character" on the show, which may well be true for all I know but Wikipedia doesn't care about that. There are multiple instances of non-trivial coverage of this character in outlets like the CBC, Entertainment Weekly, and iO9 already in the article. A Google News search turns up tons more stuff. I'm not sure how much more we could ask of this article. A Train^talk 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly and HelloGiggles shouldn't be given the same weight to prove notability in this situation. Both are owned by Time Inc., a company that was spunoff from Time Warner, the company that produces the show and owns the network Powerpuff Girls airs on. Entertainment Weekly in particular seems to have been used solely as a promotional vehicle for this. This isn't journalism, it's an undisclosed advertisement. All of the information in those articles was also present in the Animation Magazine link anyway.

As for the CBC story, there's a reason it was used for "Further Reading" and not directly cited in the article. It's actually an audio interview clipped from Q. It starts off about the character, but quickly goes into the subject's own personal view on things. This is wholly irrelevant to the deletion discussion, but it's a weird interview in general. The backdrop provided by the CBC overstates the character's narrative importance (the host and the summary indicate Bliss is a lead in a series yet to premiere, and not a temporary addition to an already running show) and the actress isn't even the one that'll be heard in Canada, which is never brought up in the interview ...

iO9's coverage is fine. It actually supports my position that the Reception section of this page should be merged into the overall show's article as it's a review of the episodes the character appears in. Conversely, if someone wanted to make an article about the TV special and make a Reception section talking about this, I'd have no complaints. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, your dismissal of Entertainment Weekly seems like a bit of tinfoil hattery to me. But even if we strike that source as compromised, you can spend ten seconds on Google News to find a hundred more references. You seem to have a personal axe to grind about the article subject. A Train^talk 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear GNG pass. Artw (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking through sources found through Google News appears to indicate notability to me. I take a few issues with Damnedfan1234's response to Trekker above my message. His or her personal opinion on the amount of articles on individual fictional characters on Wikipedia is irrelevant and raises concerns about a bias against the article that is not directly rooted in Wikipedia policy. Also, what determines notability is the amount of independent, significant coverage on the character. The amount of time that the character appears in said medium is irrelevant to this argument and any argument trying to tie notability to screen time should be discounted. I am also not particularly a fan against the attacks against Trekker’s edit history on the article. I do not support the comments made in the edit summary, but I fail to see how it is relevant here. I apologize for the long post. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have put my foot in my mouth talking about my own views for what Wikipedia should and shouldn't cover. I do want to note that in the near decade I've been an editor of this site, this is the first time I've ever nominated a page for deletion. I think it's clear I'm not someone gunning for page kills.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and it is understandable. I did not have the impression of you looking for page kills so do not worry about it. We all have our own views on Wikipedia so it is nice to have different areas where dialogues can be opened and we can all learn and grow together. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as this may seem indeed less-than-notable, the coverage is there, and coverage matters more than your impressions or mine. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The character has clearly received lots of attention and coverage from numerous sources. Her being a minor character doesn't negate that. Having said that, the article still needs works, completely lacking any information in regards to "Production" and "Appearances". PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After thorough thought, I have changed sides. This is clearly a notable subject, and fits the criteria for a page to exist. Wekpidea (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wekpidea, you'd be a mensch if you ~~struck out~~ your previous position to make life easier for the administrator who closes this discussion. A Train^talk 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per other arguments towards notability. The coverage appears to be about her ethnicity rather than just promotional. However, I think the article should be renamed Blisstina Utonium per WP:NATURAL, as a more natural disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:11, 10 October 2017 (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.