Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beanie Buddy

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. Notwithstanding that I have !voted in this discussion myself, I feel that this should be closed, as it is one of very many bad faith AfDs created by this user, who is a possible sock (see here). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Buddy

Non notable topic, no reliable sources, only one link, not the subject of non trivial published secondary sources. Not verified. Does not assert notability. NewAtThis (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.NewAtThis (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would imagine that all of the Ty lines are notable. This one seems to have some decent news coverage, although other sources will be hard to weed out amid all the vendor listings that Google throws up (at least it would be hard for someone as impatient as I). I would also imagine that these are especially notable as they were the first line to use a new type of fabric. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid to late 1990s, there were several magazines devoted to nothing but Beanie Babies and other Ty collectibles. Some newspapers even had a Beanie Babies column. I bet there are lots of articles about these things, although the magazines probably aren't electronically archived. Zagalejo^^^ 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - probably notable, but needs better sourcing to prove it. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Beanie Babies or to Ty. I've tried sifting through all the vendor listings and such and can't find anything specifically about "the buddies" only "the babies". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of reliable secondary sources (including the Chicago Sun-Times) [1] and the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal [2] and so many more. Article needs expansion, not deletion! - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Smoochy the frog is clearly notable ;-) But there are plenty of sources available. I am confident that a reliable well-sourced article can be made with the sources available. EJF (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Popular product of popular company. ~EdGl 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourceable -- Whpq (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amazon.com describes several Beanie Buddies on its site. Coverage especially from a major on-line store such as Amazon.com can and does meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 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.