Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit

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 keep. I think we have consensus that the content is good. Whether it belongs in a standalone article or in Campbell's article is an editorial decision to be discussed in the ordinary course. -- Y not? 16:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Whoppit[edit]

Mr Whoppit (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)

Non notable mascot, fails GNG, subject can be more than adequately covered in the article about the owner. both redirect and PROD contested by the creator so we get to have our jollies here.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment This was twice blanked, then PRODed with the untruthful rationale, "all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". This is a rather obvious falsehood: of the 9 sources cited, one is to David Tremayne's biography (usually considered as a canonical text on Donald Campbell) and one to the Daily Telegraph. Even discounting the others, these two are very far from " absolutely non reliable" as claimed.
Accoridingly, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amongst other sources, appears in two robust books about Campbell and also coverage by the Daily Telegraph. When they covered a family dispute over Campbell's wreck crash, they saw fit to also cover the dispute about Mr Whoppit. Some of the other bear-fan sources are quite llightweight, but worth reading for the bear-focussed detail that some appreciate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I see is a handful of passing mentions little reason for this to be split from the owners article. Ridernyc (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lack of unique content that can easily be summarised and merged in to the main Campbell article. DavidMichaelScott– talk 00:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge Weak keep - I am not sufficiently familiar with the TeddyBear-world to say whether or not this bear is a "star" within that community. The evidence of his notability so far is thin. But this is a notability issue, not a sourcing issue. There are certainly enough perfectly adequate sources for the bear's "biography" as it were, but we need evidence that Whoppit is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Clearly there is enough for a section in the Campbell article. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The independent nature of Woppit is really on two grounds, separate from Campbell. He(sic) existed beforehand as a character in a children's comic. This character was sufficiently popular for a bear maker to then produce a figure of the cartoon. If it were a pokemon or Disney, that would already be a shoo-in. Secondly, long after Campbell's death, Merrythought produced a commemorative bear, matching Campbell's differently clothed Mr Whoppit.
I'm not a bear afficionado either, although I have more interest in teddy bears than I do in baseball. Yet I can recognise that others interests are not mine and that WP:GNG is about measuring comment in other sources (which this topic meets, from sources around both bears and racing), not in whether or not it's a personal interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not about whether you or I are interested in Bears, but at the moment the article only quotes a few rather minor sources on Woppit rather than Whoppit (I am using the "h" to signify Campbell's personal bear, since that spelling distinction seems to be in the sources). I would be happy to change my mind if more evidence is brought forward. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact having just done a google seearch for "woppit bear" and "whoppit bear" there seem to be a great many references to it, as both the original and the 1990s issue are clearly highly collectable [1]. However, I think it should be changed to Woppit or Whoppit, and the Campbell content should become a section. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are four bears:
  • Woppit (comic)
  • Woppit (1950s Merrythought bears)
  • Mr Whoppit (Campbell's own bear, with Bluebird patch and later flightsuit)
  • Mr Whoppit (Merrythought '90s repro, with jacket and Bluebird patch)
No "Whoppit", AFAIK, as the h and the Mr both came together, from Campbell. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they are all interrelated, but since your case for stand-alone notability depends on all these bears being, as it were, essentially "one thing" in evolving different forms, I guess you go with WP:NAME. It happens that "mr whoppit" and "bear" gets 2,330 google results; "whoppit" and "bear" gets 24,600; "woppit" and "bear" gets 8,390. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Whoppit was commonly shortened to Whoppitt, and all of them were no doubt frequently mis-spelled (even "Blue Bird" and "Bluebird" are regularly mixed up). Those numbers though would seem to favour Mr Whoppit (as the correct form for the Campbell bear) over Woppit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for a consolidated article about this bear in his various guises, as suggested by Paul B's analysis. Although it can be reasonably argued that this material is subsidiary to more clearly notable primary topics, I think there's too much worthwhile content here to fit into either Robin (magazine) or Donald Campbell, and splitting it up makes it difficult to understand the context (especially for someone like me who came into the AfD knowing very little about Campbell and nothing about Robin). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Red Pen is now proceeding to blank content and sources, and edit-warring to enforce his viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe that you are edit warring attempting to include forum posts, blogspot, flikr, and blacklisted hubpages.com as sources under some bizarre notion sources dont need to be reliable? Someone who has been here as long a you should really know better. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off-topic, TRPoD, but Andy Dingley has done this to me, reverting my edit on a completely-unsourced, long-established article, and adding a commercial, self-published 2000s highly-promotional website as the only source relating to a 1960s-era article - should really know better. Hence he's on my watch list.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this? Where I had the temerity to suggest that the Ace Cafe might know a thing or two about motorbikes? Now apart from harbouring grudges, do you have anything relevant to add here? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the article itself is about the specific teddy bear mascot of Campbell, the sources for the other bears are immaterial. The sources for the Campbell bear (those that would qualify as WP:RS appear to be minor or passing mentions. There doesn't appear to be enough to sustain notability of this bear as a separate subject. --Eggishorn 01:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is the scope limited only to Campbell? The origins of the character are entirely relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge a small para's worth of content to main article on wp:NOTINHERITED grounds. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit I did initially think teddy bear=not notable. However looking at the article, I see there are a number of different sources used which suggests to me that there is enough notability through coverage for it to pass GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For notability purposes "Different sources" must have significant coverage of the subject, not just mentioning in some trivia fact. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing mentions and unreliable sources. Not notable. Could be merged to the parent article if warranted. I'm not convinced that it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read Tremayne or Knowles? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mr Whoppit needs to be a major subtopic of Donald Campbell per Wikipedia:Summary style for there to be a stand alone article on the topic. None of the subsections in the Donald Campbell article are directed to Mr Whoppit, so the consensus of editors of the main article itself do not think Mr Whoppit is a major subtopic the Donald Campbell topic. The subject can be more than adequately covered in the article about Donald Campbell. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, specifically per Jreferee, and likewise earlier commenters; this doesn't need to be an article of its own. — Scott • talk 17:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent notability from the owner; not enough encyclopedic info for separate article. The current article is simply bloated with trivia ("found floating" "brought to the graveyeard"). Even the fact that it failed to be sold at an auction shows it is not notable (or widow got greedy; still does not increase the notability). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic has been covered extensively in numerous sources over many years. Just taking the books about famous teddy bears which feature this "celebrity bear", we have:
  1. Christie's Century of Teddy Bears
  2. Collectable Teddy Bears
  3. Collecting Teddy Bears
  4. Teddy Bears: A Celebration in Words and Paintings
  5. Teddy Bears: a guide to their history, collecting, and care
  6. The Little Book of Celebrity Bears
  7. The Teddy Bear Book

On top of this, there's a stack of books about Campbell, the Robin and numerous articles in newspapers and periodicals, including reputable broadsheets like The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. The nomination and delete votes are defective in that they seem to suppose that deletion is appropriate for a merger. This is false as explained at WP:MAD. Instead, our editing policy applies and so deletion is quite inappropriate. Andrew (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Andy Dingley makes a good case, as does Andrew Davidson. Reliable sources do give significant coverage of this item. Dream Focus 15:25, 24 January 2014 (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/Mr_Whoppit&oldid=1171610464"