Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handy Andy (tools)

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Andy (tools)

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

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

Article does not assert notability, only cited source is a dead link Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. When you search it on Google, you only get eBay or amazon. The link is also a dead one. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yea this article dies with the link unless someone can research it deeper. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this appears to have been popular line of toys in the 1950s and 60s(?), lots of pikkies at gimages (and have a look at this brilliant set here made of real wood and metal!), and i am sure that they will be covered in books about vintage toys/games (and no, i do not know which ones:)) but unless there is an editor out there with the knowledge/willing to improve this article, it is an extremely reluctant delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added toys project to the talkpage so that editors with the expertise/interest may provide their assessment of notableness of this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are e-commerce websites. A cursory BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds nothing else redeeming. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [1] is a cool source, but unfortunately it's an advertisement. Can't find anything better source-wise, though it does pass WP:V. I'm a reluctant delete too, but only on "I like it" grounds, so have to give it a full delete. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 8 July 2019 (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.