Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Kids

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. And further, no consensus that this is a hoax. If further discussion on merger continues editorially, would highly advise toning down the rhetoric. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Updated to Keep per discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BBC_Kids. Thanks @Scope_creep for flagging what I missed. Star Mississippi 15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Kids

[edit]

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

BBC Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" may without exaggeration be the worst example of WP:SYNTH to ever hit Wikipedia. Forget reliable, not a single source period (update: one questionable source found below) so much as mentions any two – let alone more – of these completely independent channels together! The idea of an "international BBC Kids brand" for TV channels literally only exists as this Wikipedia page, until of course some hapless media intern comes along and writes an article "inspired" by this one before it could be deleted... Modernponderer (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is merit in covering the "BBC Kids" channels with two separate entries, one for the 2001-2018 channel in the Americas, and one for the 2021-current offerings. A page exists for the former, but currently this is the only page that aims to cover all aspects of the latter. I would not object if the page currently focused on the Australian BBC Kids feed had it's focus broadened globally, or if the page proposed for deletion remained but was refocused on the 2021-current period. But I don't approve of deleting this page without finding a home for it's content not covered elsewhere.Transient-understanding (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Transient-understanding, even the newer channels are (with one questionable exception found below) simply not discussed together in any sources. There is already a "home" for this content: individual channel articles, which do not violate WP:SYNTH.
(By the way, there was no "2001-2018 channel in the Americas" – it was 100%, entirely, purely a Canadian channel which was simply rebroadcasted in some other countries. That's another type of misinformation that "articles" like this help propagate if they are not deleted quickly.) Modernponderer (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The noms claim that "BBC Kids" is not an international brand is hard to fathom. "BBC Kids launches in South Africa and Taiwan" from Broadband TV News opens with "BBC Studios is partnering with...as it extends the BBC Kids brand." I don't think Julian Clover is a "hapless media intern" but feel free to prove me wrong. The transition from in-house to BBC Studios (the commercial arm) which created the current incarnation of the BBC Kids brand has been well covered [1][2][3]. I don't have an argument with Transient-understanding over the benefits of a possible split, but there really is not enough content in the page yet to make that worth doing. SpinningSpark 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Spinningspark, congratulations (seriously!) – you found a single article that actually does talk about more than one of these channels. I've updated my nomination to point that out. Unfortunately, given that it was written well after this page was created there is a significant chance that exactly what I feared has already happened – intern or no intern. Regardless, we can't base an article on a single source...
    • About the other links you provided: I'd suggest you read past the titles of sources you cite, because they are about BBC kids content in general. They have nothing whatsoever to do with "BBC Kids" as a brand name. Just look at the variety of names the articles use:
      • kids division
      • children's division
      • the BBC’s in-house children’s TV department
      • Kids and Family Productions at BBC Studios
      • BBC Children’s In-House Productions
      • BBC Studios’ Kids & Family
      • BBC Children’s & Education
      • BBC Children
    • Furthermore, they are talking about content and not TV channels, which (despite the WP:COATRACK first sentence of this article, which even tarnished my nomination with its "brand" wording) are what this article is actually about. Modernponderer (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The launch in South Africa got a significant amount of press. There's also coverage about the Australia launch. Maybe it could be structured better. Chagropango (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Chagropango, I don't ask this often as it's rarely appropriate but: please strike out your !vote. What you wrote has literally nothing whatsoever to do with WP:SYNTH, or this article frankly. Nobody (including me) is disputing that individual channels can be notable, which is why they have their own articles. Modernponderer (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, I don't have a lot of familiarity with WP:SYNTH, but it's very hard for me to see how it could necessitate deletion of an article on a qualifying subject rather than improvement, unless the problems were so deep rooted that WP:TNT would be less work than fixing the issues. However, if you can explain it to me I would be grateful and I would also gladly strike out my !vote. Chagropango (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Chagropango, WP:SYNTH means this is NOT a "qualifying subject". You've correctly pointed out that there are reliable sources for channels in individual countries, but what we need for THIS article are reliable sources covering multiple channels together. Otherwise, we are synthesizing the sources about individual channels to create the Wikipedia-exclusive idea of an "international BBC Kids channel brand". As I pointed out below, this is an issue coming from the sources, not Wikipedia, so it is impossible to fix here and the article must therefore be deleted. Modernponderer (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So is your argument that such a brand in itself is not notable, although the individual instances are? Chagropango (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Chagropango, no! My factual statement (not argument) is that no brand named "BBC Kids" even exists, because the sources are ONLY about individual channels! Modernponderer (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page There are only two entities here, each with their own article (nobody should count the U.S. Pluto TV version, that's not a cable channel, nor the South African app), and it's strongly likely the Bahamas and Jamaica got the Canadian version (Canadian network carriage is common in both those nations). The latter can be put in the CA article, and this should plainly be a disambiguation. There was no 'revival' of the original Canadian service as claimed here, so I've changed that heading but do not endorse this article in any manner. Appropriate mention of progammes being made available as VOD/AVOD services in SA/US/TW can be made in a short manner on the CBBC/CBeebies articles (US is already mentioned), but not here. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergePer above, one possibility is to merge any content worth keeping to other pages, then convert to disambiguation page per Nate. Seems like a great solution, given that both entities already have their own articles already, and it's not 100% clear that they actually belong grouped together as part of a single article. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously stated, I have no problem with the Canadian channel details being removed from here, but there is no other page that covers the various 2021-current services using the "BBC Kids" brand. They are clearly growing in number, and taking different forms in different territories. Giving them individual pages would mean WP:OVERLAP, so why not mention them all here? Transient-understanding (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment They're merely streaming services which air programming drawn from the BBC and thus do not earn articles like their permanent network counterparts, as the services can be pulled without any public notice. Thus, mention in the articles mentioned above is appropriate and proper. Nate • (chatter) 22:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it worth considering converting this page into a Set index page instead of a Disambiguation page per WP:SETINDEX...? Maybe that addresses concerns on all sides and you could keep any content that has citations? It strikes me that Set index pages are an underused option. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subdivision of the BBC. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that its division opened in locations that are so disparate are a clear sign it is notable. scope_creepTalk 18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK that's it, I'm obviously being trolled so goodbye WP:AGF – what a relief! Now let me make some things crystal clear:
      • THERE IS NO SUCH "DIVISION" AS "BBC KIDS". THIS IS A FABRICATION OF WIKIPEDIA.
      • NOT A SINGLE SOURCE (including the one that was found here) MAKES THIS CLAIM.
      • @User:Stifle and @User:scope_creep: unless both of you want to get reported for spreading WP:Hoaxes – as I am this close to doing now that AGF has been shattered – I strongly suggest that you strike out your votes immediately (not !votes as you clearly didn't treat them as such).
      • Note to the closer: If factually false votes such as these are not disregarded, it implies your support for hoaxes on Wikipedia (and all the consequences that supporting a type of vandalism implies). Modernponderer (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Modernponderer: I'm a page reviewer and it comes with various extra search functions as part of that. One of them is Google CSE. You can set this up yourself. When you do a search on Google CSE it comes with reams of coverage. The same with Google news. When you look at one of these references, for example, one their news site, BBC Studios Kids & Family announces new senior appointments to help accelerate growth it states clearly "BBC Kids branded services and on leading content platforms around the world." which likely verifies the term. Its not the most salubrious ref but it shows the division exists, perhaps its some type of management structure for the bbc childrens brand. I'm not in the business of providing hoaxes on Wikipedia. Your comment approaches WP:BLUDGEON territory. scope_creepTalk 20:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a page is so grossly, obscenely out of line with Wikipedia policy that it must be deleted without delay, no tool in one's toolbox is off-limits. Call it "bludgeoning" if you want, but it is a point of pride, not a fault, to actually stand up for Wikipedia policy instead of going like most of the participants here – "It's from the BBC, and WP:IKNOWIT (the BBC, not the non-existent "brand"), so obviously the article should be kept!" – without actually reading the reason for deletion, as explained in great detail in this discussion (as if the nomination weren't clear enough).
    • And it does seem that latter point applies to you, as your source comes with the following problems:
      • It is from the BBC itself, and therefore prohibited to use for the purpose of deciding whether to have a standalone article on a subject (per WP:N's requirement of independent sources). Seriously, what is it doing here? You're an experienced editor, so how do you not know that? And as if to add insult to injury, that's after I've already explained this exact point earlier in this discussion... do you see why this really looks like trolling?
      • Even this unusable source does not call "BBC Kids" a "division"! That is the part I'm calling a hoax, made up in this very deletion discussion in fact. Modernponderer (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No one said BBC Kids is a division of the BBC. The company is BBC Studios (not BBC the corporation), the department is BBC Kids & Family (it has a department head so, duh, it is a department), and one of their brands is BBC Kids. SpinningSpark 22:47, 24 November 2022 (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/BBC_Kids&oldid=1125168006"