Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Rabbit

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. Consensus is to keep, with advice for expansion. tedder (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rabbit

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it appears to be chiefly a rehash of the article The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Nothing is said in Peter Rabbit that cannot be said (or has been said) in the primary article. The Peter Rabbit article is principally unsourced, and includes a duplicate plot summary from the primary article. The "list" of Peter's appearances in other Potter books can be effectively merged into the primary article and Peter Rabbit deleted. While Peter Rabbit fans will probably deplore the deletion of this article and Peter Rabbit is a cultural icon, there is nothing in this article that truly merits a stand alone article. At best, I would like to see Peter Rabbit redirected to The Tale of Peter Rabbit and its content merged where appropriate with the primary article, but, failing that, I support the article's deletion. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It is reasonably well written as it stands and can always be improved. It serves as an introduction to an iconic character and also as a handy summary of the various Peter Rabbit books. Markhh (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the Wikipedia deletion policy, article deletion is not based solely on the current article contents. In this case the article quite clearly meet the general notability guideline; even a rather casual browsing of the news, books, scholar links above shows that there are numerous secondary reliable sources to draw from. The character appears in several stories, not just The Tale of Peter Rabbit and there are plenty of sources that deal with the character in a broader sense, not just as an element of that specific story. Siawase (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two topics are distinct, clear and both encyclopedic, and content overlap is not excessive. I'm tempted to say strong keep but before doing that I'd like to understand the context of the proposal... it sounds like it's really a merge proposal (which I'd also oppose) but I can't see any evidence that it has been previously raised as one. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Doesn't really need to be a separate article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa's argument, with a hint of Siawese's. PR is important enough in his own right and this can easily become a good article. Of course the character has a lot to do with the book, but there are plenty of differences also. The bit about PR being licensed, for instance, should receive treatment separately from the book. There's scholarly work also. I don't know if you all can see this, but it's interesting--a scholarly article on Peter Rabbit the icon/myth/image, not the book (W. Nikola-Lisa, "The Cult of Peter Rabbit: A Barthesian Analysis," The Lion and the Unicorn 15.2 (1991): 61-66.). In other words, Peter has plenty of notability, and AfD is not for article improvement. Won't some loving soul turn this into a Good Article, please? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drmies. Distinct from the book, lots of potential. Cerebellum (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is about a notable character, and much of the article is not replicated in (and shouldn't be) in The Tale of Peter Rabbit, such as appearances in other books. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2009 (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.