Talk:Bambi's Children

Notability of article

The mere fact that Bambi's Children is a sequel to one of the most famous stories in the world alone makes the article noteworthy per Wiki guidelines. However, simply summarising the plot is a waste. The problem is, if we merge this article into the main article Bambi, A Life in the Woods, then all we still will have is a summary of the plot. (The article about the book Bambi is also achingly short of material.)

To summarise:

1) Deleting the article is too drastic given the notability of the subject. 2) Merging the article into Bambi, A Life in the Woods would make the article awkward and possibly lopsided with the given summary. (The main article already mentions the sequel.) 3) This leaves simply leaving the article as it is. Nowhere near a good solution, but the best one available. Hopefully, someone will be able to come along and expand upon it.

Lighthope (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no being a sequent to Bambi doesn't make it notable. See WP:BK for the book notability guidelines. Both book articles need a lot of work. Merge is a consideration, but I'd like to see if we can find the necessary sources to establish whether this sequel is notable. I know Bambi is, despite its bad article, but this one I'm less sure of hence my tagging it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the first things people will ask of Bambi (or any other story people endear) is "Is there more to the story." With regard to WP:NB, Bambi's Children qualifies simply by being attached to the original Bambi as well as being published in multiple formats. If we are going to argue that simply being a sequel to a very famous story is not notable enough, then you must nominate Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure and Curse of the Maya among thousands of others for deletion or merging as well. That said, I am not objecting to a merge for this article per se. The problem with a merge is that there is nothing to the Bambi's Children article that can not be summed up by the line that already appears in the novel Bambi article. I'd hate to see the plot summery deleted simply for expediency. Ultimately, notability (even by Wiki guidelines) is in the eye of the beholder. I don't want to see an article deleted simply because of a too-rigid application of what was never meant to be a hard and fast rule. Lighthope (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Films have different notability requirements, so that argument doesn't hold. And no, being attached to the original Bambi does not give it notability. Multiple formats means its been adapted, not that it has been reprinted (which I don't believe it actually has been for a long time, conidering how long it took me to find a copy). People asking 'is there more to the story" doesn't mean it gets its own article. That said, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the notability tag. It is not a "delete this article tag" nor is it a suggestion for a merge. It is indication that this article does not currently demonstrate its notability per Wikipedia guidelines and that work should be done to be sure it does meet notability. If the necessary reliable sources can't be found, then discussions should be undertaken as to whether it should be merged or deleted. Notability may be in the eye of the beholder, but despite your feeling that it was never meant to be a "hard and fast rule," a lack of notability per relevant guidelines is one of the most common reason articles are deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your opinion on notability is noted. As regards to multiple formats, I own two and it only took me five minutes to find them. And the fact that people ask "is there more to the story" does tend to make "more story" notable, but we already know your position on that. My understanding of the notability tag comes directly from the tag itself. "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion." I know it's not automatic, but it is enough to warrant a discussion of the possibilities. What is your position as to the disposition of the article, just so others can see where the conversation stands? So far, I understand you question the notability of the article, but what you want to do with it hasn't been stated yet unless I missed it. Lighthope (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion" does not mean its under immediate threat for either. At this point, I simply question whether it is notable. If notability can not be established, I would strongly prefer it be merged and redirected back to Bambi. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable, but I don't think it has enough material to warrant its own separate article. So we kind of agree, but for different reasons. I would almost like to see it merged with Bambi, A Life in the Woods if it could be merged in such a way to keep its plot synopsis. You know me. I hate to lose information. :) Lighthope (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If notability can't be established, a merge could benefit both. I think it can, though, with some digging. For the year it was released, finding info will be a little more challenging (good old pre-internet :P) For now, though, its fine as is with the tag acting as a notice/reminder that work is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how the brain works sometimes. I've kept an eye on that article for several months, protecting it from vandalism and error, so you'd think I'd know it backward and forward. Yet my brain kept telling me it was generally a plot summary, but when I went back this morning to see what had been going on with it (something about it being "protected"), my brain saw a completely different article. <Sigh> Bottom line is, I am changing my position and favouring a merge with Bambi, A Life in the Woods. If more information can be gleened about the book, a stand-alone article may be justified. But in its present form, an almost word-for-word merge may be better and may actually succeed in getting more people to hear about it. Lighthope (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If notability can't be established after 2-4 weeks, then I agree, a merge would be the best follow up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So other readers don't have to wade through that huge conversation above, I have changed my position to favour merging the article with Bambi, A Life in the Woods barring some significant improvement/expansion to the article. I have not changed my position on the notability of the subject, but I feel there is not enough material to the article to justify its separate existence.

AnmaFinotera favours, and I agree, that we should wait 2-4 weeks on this matter to see if there is any further input before any action is taken. I would prefer the full four weeks. Lighthope (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I was able to address these three issues of the article:

• Increasing the number of references.
• Further establishing notability with independent, verifiable sources.
• Getting the article slightly beyond stub status.

I have adressed similar issues for this article at simple.wiki. This is also an opportunity to thank all those who have worked on the article and discussed it so far! gidonb (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)