Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Apollo (toy)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Apollo (toy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Given the total lack of references, there is no content to merge and anyway there is no valid merge/redirect target I see. The PROD was removed with no valid rationale despite my request to provide one (per best practices) by a habitual deprodder, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find sources covering this toy line such as The Encyclopedia of Marx Action Figures and Action Figures: From Action Man to Zelda. Our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And WP:NEXIST: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, given that I have seen you present similar references multiple times, only to find that there are remarks in passing, can you provide page numbers and preferably complete quotations to show that those work discuss this particular toy at length? Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jak się nie ma, co się lubi, to się lubi, co się ma. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a random irrlevant Polish proverb is... well, it doesn't even belong on Wikipedia:Arguments not use in deletion discusisons. But let me reply with another, more relevant proverb: speech is silver, silence is golden.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to failing the general notability guidelines. The sources just aren't there. Maybe the ones provided by Andrew are sufficient, but it's highly likely they are just trivial as things in books like the ones he referenced usually are. I don't feel like digging through them to find out either. I'd be willing to change my vote if quotes (and not ones of Polish proverbs) are provided though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources provided are specialized directories of countless generic toys. We are not that, and there's no indication what makes this figurine notable, as being a product sold is not automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 6 November 2020 (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.