Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures

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 Delete. --VS ^talk 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures

non-notable toy line; advert Mhking (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A useful tool for collectors, and a figure series extremely dominate. This series has over 200 figures and has been created with turning jakks around.mrdanielaiello (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.125.133 (talk) [reply]
STRONG KEEP - I started this page as a tool for collectors. This line has revitalized the jakks Pacific brand, and is one of the top toy lines sought out by collectors. Find something else to do with your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatrich1 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:V, and WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete markcruft, there's an arguement to include a mention of the toys to the WWE article, but nowhere near this detailed. -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, toycruft. Not a notable product. Lankiveil (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it there may be reasons in the rules to delete this. but the page has been very valuable to me since u can not go to the toy makers web site and find this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiss1217682002 (talk • contribs)
I also say Keep it Don't delete it. Just don't. It is a reference that is helpfull to many, and a list this good only proves wikipedias awesomeness. It is the most collected action figure line of all, in my opinion. People spend thousands upon thousands of dollars into WWE Classics, but in you peoples opinion, its non notable and not worth anything. Do you know how many collector's sites there are? Do you know how vast this line is in popularity? Do you guys think your cool for berating toys on the internet? Come on... Yeah this comment is probably gonna be disregarded and deleted cause Im not an offical member, its happened before. 208.111.196.63 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, If you think you can delete toy's articles, I think we should go around deleting videogames, to. 208.111.196.63 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you misunderstand. We are not berating toys or wrestling. There are penty of articles about both here. When some editors say "this subject is not notable", we are not just giving an opinion. Wikipedia has a written policy, which is to be enforced: Wikipedia:Notability. It is very specific in that the subject of any article must be notable by having supporting publications in legitimate third party, neutral sources. This is what we mean by "non-notable". So far, no one can find an article about these figures written about why they are notable. Without these references, this also violates another policy Wikipedia:V, which comments on the need for verifiability.

In addition, Wikipedia has another policy about creating directories of things that may or may not be related (which we couldn't tell without references). This policy is at WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. If any editor can find references for this article and improve it, then there may be a reason to keep it. Most editors, when they "vote (and this isn't a vote), base their votes on Wikipedia policy. Sometimes that policy is in a gray area, and the debates get very long and heated. In this case, the article is more clearly in violation, unless it can be cited.

Please don't take this deletion debate as a sleight against you, wrestling, or this particular toy. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To echo LonelyBeacon, this information would be highly appropriate for a website such as http://www.classicfigs.com/, but there is no reason that this has to be included on Wikipedia. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Canada, I have very limited resources in finding these figures. This page is an excellent source for me to check out whats coming up, so I don't have to make the 4hr. trip down to the boarder, checking store to store.

It also gives me an update on the exclusive figures that I otherwise would not know were out there. I vote to keep it. It's not harming anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.209.120 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was previously closed and was reviewed at DELREV (view discussion). Although the closure was found to be proper, new information that became available subsequent to the closure made relisting this discussion for further input the proper course of action. I am therefore relisting it, accordingly. I also recuse myself from closing this debate a second time to avoid any appearance of admin bias. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The original closing comment was: The result was Delete based on strength of argument and reference to policy/guideline. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wonder now about the comments like there is no reason that this has to be included on Wikipedia. One would think it was the other way round: if you want to delete it, the burden of proof lies with you. Seems perfectly notable to me. Talk about "mindless three-letter bureaucratic nonesense". -- Saaska (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to fit in WP:NOTABILITY well enough, given the perceived importance of the figures from collectors. Guldenat (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From WP:NN: "The topic of an article should be notable ... This concept is distinct from ... "importance"". [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment "...although these may positively correlate with notability." My decision to keep is based on because the subject may be important and popular, we should take a closer look at it then simply rule lawyering and deleting. Guldenat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The objections to this seem to be weak cruftcruft. I have added a cite to show the fans how it's done and expect that there are more to be found in the likes of Toyfare. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the significant coverage by independent secondary sources? (not counting adverts/promotional material obviously) Is there a perceived interest by collecters? This may indeed be a valuable tool for collecters, but Wikipedia isn't a guidebook/directory/catalogue. I wouldn't expect to see this in ~~Britannica~~ an encyclopaedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cited a newspaper but you removed this citation on the spurious grounds that the link requires a payment to access the source in full (a feature of many sources). Referencing sources may require time and expense and allowance should be made for this. Wikipedia does not confine itself to things which may be freely Googled. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right and I apologise for my error in judgement. I actually sought a second opinion on the issue after removing the citation but completely forgot to revert my edit. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I cannot agree that this article should be deleted because a publication like Britannica wouldn't cover it (there are many wholly legitimate articles that Britannica would never cover), I must agree that I still don't see anything that would fulfill WP:V. Coverage must be independent of the subject. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've altered my wording. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Suriel's altered comment. Nikki311 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Really is needed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added another cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hmmm ... the one reference, as you mentioned, requires a subscription. I could not check that. The other reference was intriguiing: I think Toy Collector Magazine would have to rank as an independent source, given that it appears to not be affiliated with wrestling or the company making the line. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the person who posted the original AfD; a further review of the page, despite the additional source material added, still encourages me to support my original position to delete the page. --Mhking (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is not notable due to lack of significant coverage by secondary sources, also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is not sufficient sourced encyclopaedic information to create an encyclopaedia article. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Also since - I believe - the magazine mentioned was selling the toys in question I don't think that it can count as an independent source, they have an interest in promoting the toys. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Strong Delete - Obvious advert, nothing else. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I am the admin who originally closed this debate then subsequently relisted it). The compelling evidence that convinced me to overturn my own closing and relist was the statement that this toy was featured on a toy industry magazine cover. After reading the above statement that the magazine promotes and sells products it features, I reviewed the magazine's [magazine's website viewable in edit mode] and it does indeed look more like a catalog than a true magazine, as it has links to buy the products next to the discussion of each, and prominently has a basket on it's main page. This magazine can not be used as an independent source to establish notability. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this now? It's been deleted, and that deletion has been endorsed at DR. The only reason that this is still here is because of a last-minute stay-of-execution by the closing admin, and said admin has now withdrawn his opposition. And by the timestamp, that was three days ago... -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I can not close this, as I recused myself from closing when I relisted it. Any other admin is requested to immediately close this obvious Delete AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:49, 20 January 2008 (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.