- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Bialosky Bear
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bialosky Bear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A product line that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPRODUCT. Searches for sources are only turning up "for sale" type results or price guides rather than any actual coverage of the toys. And even the few paper sources from the era they are from that have been digitized are only ads for them that appeared in magazines/papers rather than coverage about them. I had initially considered simply WP:BOLDly redirecting or merging this to the Gund article, but the product line is not mentioned there, there is no suitable content in this article for merging, and my failure to find any significant coverage makes me think that the product line is ultimately not notable enough to be mentioned there. I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply PRODing this one, in case anyone else has any better luck in locating any print sources from the 70's or 80's. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think we can probably keep by WP:GNG, as we should be able to write a start class or better article based on independent sources. Otherwise merge to Gund as an WP:ATD. Some SIGCOV here [1] A small amount of SIGCOV here [2], A short mention here [3].
- Here's some mixed independent/non-independent coverage that will still be useful for the article [4] [5] — siro χ o 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Bialosky Bear
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bialosky Bear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A product line that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPRODUCT. Searches for sources are only turning up "for sale" type results or price guides rather than any actual coverage of the toys. And even the few paper sources from the era they are from that have been digitized are only ads for them that appeared in magazines/papers rather than coverage about them. I had initially considered simply WP:BOLDly redirecting or merging this to the Gund article, but the product line is not mentioned there, there is no suitable content in this article for merging, and my failure to find any significant coverage makes me think that the product line is ultimately not notable enough to be mentioned there. I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply PRODing this one, in case anyone else has any better luck in locating any print sources from the 70's or 80's. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think we can probably keep by WP:GNG, as we should be able to write a start class or better article based on independent sources. Otherwise merge to Gund as an WP:ATD. Some SIGCOV here [1] A small amount of SIGCOV here [2], A short mention here [3].
- Here's some mixed independent/non-independent coverage that will still be useful for the article [4] [5] — siro χ o 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.