Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diddl

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. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Diddl

Diddl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable sources, orphaned, fails WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (and, of course, improve). Notable comic character in Germany, especially in the 1990s. See [1]. See articles in other wikis and plenty of hits on Google news [2]. --Edcolins (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Google News search brings up a single Washington Post article (reproduced in several places) which mentions Diddl in the headline, and then in two short paras at the end, and whole bunch of stuff in other languages. There appears to be no policy in place on using foreign language sources in the English Wikipedia. If Diddl's so notable, why is this article orphaned? Jonobennett (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is a policy in place about using non-English sources and it is that they can be used if no equally good English language sources can be found. I can't understand why so many people question this. Why on earth should we limit the subjects that we cover based on what language sources are written in? Imagine what a Manx encyclopedia would look like if it restricted itself to articles on subjects that had been covered by reliable sources in Manx. That's obviously a ridiculous proposition, and the difference between that and an English encyclopedia only covering articles with reliable sources in English is only a matter of degree. And the blindingly obvious reason why some articles are orphaned is that nobody has linked them from other articles. What has that got to do with deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed that policy -- I was looking for it under WP:RS rather than WP:V. The article being orphaned is more than just a lack of links -- Diddl is not mentioned anywhere else in WP, which if it truly was notable it surely would have been. None of the sources cited in the page talk about Diddl in any great depth -- they're all passing mentions. This is a clear case of failing WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• In case of you haven't noticed, I have added three new references, all in English. We could add plenty of sources in German and French, but that one alone must be sufficient: "It would be wrong to think that Austrians are much less family-oriented than Asians and Hispanics, hence do not buy things to please their children. In fact, there are numerous highly popular cartoon characters in the country, which appeal to customers by their cuteness. The best example is perhaps Diddl, a white cartoon mouse, together with its host of characters, that are found in almost every store, large or small." (emphasis added) [3] Still not convinced? --Edcolins (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not by that reference, no. It's a single mention on page 9 of a 10-page academic paper, published in the Atlantic Economic Journal. Hardly "significant coverage", to quote WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Re "they're all passing mentions", have you read this one [4] and, in this source, "Diddl’s success is impressive. He’s already jumping around in 26 countries and speaks 16 different languages."? --Edcolins (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• ...and that's from a brochure, designed to sell products associated with Diddl. Hardly independent. Notability is not about what commercial activity there has been around a fictional character, it's about how much significant coverage it has had in third-party, reliable sources. There really doesn't seem to have been any such coverage of Diddl. Jonobennett (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have two daughters. Each has about 3 Diddls, 8 Diddlinas ... None of their girlfriends has none! You can hardly find a store in Germany or Austria without a large corner of Diddles. Certainly always at least twice as large as all Disney stuff together. And that since at least 10 years. No question KEEP! --Swen 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)

• Keep per Edcolins, Phil Bridger. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Follow up, per WP:HEY. For example, this edit added useful information and a cite. I can see bits of improvement in this article towards proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think EdCollins and Phil Bridger have shown enough notability. It probably would be useful to add some of those foreign language references. Aleta ^Sing 04:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons stated above. It sounds notable to me. Dream Focus 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep mascot character with a Hello Kitty-esque popularity in Germany, and is internationally recognisable as well. I remember US Toys R Us having Diddl stuff a few years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly. There are plenty of RS around. The one source on Der Spiegel from de:Diddle is a really good source to build an article from since it describes the 18 year history of the figures. --Amalthea 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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.