Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toyetic

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 April 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toyetic

This article is quite the mishmash. First of all, the title is an adjective, which is strong evidence that the article is about a word rather than about a concept (which are almost always expressed as nouns). Second of all, much of the prose portion of this article is about the word itself, rather than the concept underlying it. Third, the discussion of the actual phenomenon of merchandising of licensed characters is covered by Merchandising#Licensing. Finally, the bottom portion of this article is nothing but an unsourced list of properties which one or more unknown editors considered to be "toyetic". In short, this is not a suitable encyclopedic article. Powers ^T 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merchandising#Licensing per nominator. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was closed early by ImperatorExercitus, a non-administrator. Per WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, am annulling the closure and relisting the discussion. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A redirect would be inappropriate, because the article Merchandising does not mention this word. A redirect would therefore be confusing to the user. Powers ^T 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Straight up delete then. Spiesr (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 9780275966416 takes three pages, pages 94 to 96, to describe toyetic production and toyetic products. ISBN 9780618463510 discusses toyetic television characters on pages 119–122. Sources exist, and at least some of the article content as it currently stands actually agrees with them. Fixing the article involves using these and other sources, the rename button (and some appropriate noun title), the edit button, and the merciless sword of verifiability.
By the way: Here's a quote from the first source (written by Ernest Sternberg, professor at the University of Buffalo), that makes the argument against redirection: "The output of toyetic production need not be merchandise." Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice research, Uncle G, but I'm still not convinced an encyclopedic article could be written. I'm also curious what other "output[s] of toyetic production" there might be, if not merchandise... Powers ^T 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's actually explained in the rest of the paragraph following that sentence, which you'll find on page 95. Pull up the sources and have a read. Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, seems an expansion of the concept of "toyeticness", or whatever, then. The author is treating is as more of a general "how can money be made off of this property" than just "how can we make toys of this". Powers ^T 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that what we need to do is find the "X" in "toyetic X" to rename this article to, as per the point about naming conventions that you made in the nomination. You've now read those sources (I infer.). What do you think that "X" should be? Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I'm not sure that we need a separate article for this but I am quite certain that this material is not suitable for deletion as this is a useful search term. The focus upon toys rather than general merchandise like T-shirts and mugs seems significant and merits further attention. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found one claim it was first used in a cartoon more than a decade ago. Looking around the 4,050 Google entries for the word, I see it commonly used. Its good to have an article about such an important concept in the entertainment industry. Listing cartoon series created to promote toys, is good content to have. Dream Focus 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it can be done by referring to reliable sources, though. Which the current list does not. Powers ^T 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was coined in 1989:[1]. There seem to be enough news stories and business books talking about the phenomenon and using the term to retain this article. Fences and windows (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ... and recreate the content on wiktionary. Appropriate targets include perhaps merchandising and persona. This "article" is actually a definition page with a list of examples (adjective problem like LtPowers (talk · contribs) suggests). Even when looking for references the results are always about "the word". Z a bM i l e n k o 07:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you find someone talking about the concept, other than searching for the name of that concept? And most of the article is examples of Toyetic. You could just as easily rename the article "Cartoons created to sell toys". Dream Focus 12:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something about "toyetic production" in google or maybe is something can be found on the criteria for determining if a persona is toyetic. Take a look at WP:ADJECTIVE to deal with the problem of talking about a concept, but that leads back to WP:DICTIONARY in re this article. Z a bM i l e n k o 12:59, 13 May 2009 (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.