Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Webkinz stuffed animals
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Webkinz stuffed animals[edit]
- List of Webkinz stuffed animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced. Indiscriminate information relevant only to the fandom. No reliable sources found. Deprodded without comment by an IP, one hour after the 7-day cut off. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability, and no reliable sources seem to be available to demonstrate WP:N. Completely non-encyclopedic with pointless overlinking (Pig is a Fortune Telling Pig and food is Mud Burger). Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate. Shii (tock) 14:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list of types of this toy is not indiscriminate information and would be considered relevant if there were fewer of them and they were listed on the Webkinz page itself. Because there are many of them, they are kept in a separate page for size considerations, similar to List of Beanie Babies. I would support a merge, but that would make the parent article awfully long. Chubbles (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list might be incomplete and need tidying but the subject matter is notable. As per Chubbies, a merge back to the main article would make that too long. NtheP (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree with Chubbles and Nthep. Article is in very poor condition, but it should not be deleted because of that. A merge would also add unnecessary weight to the main article. Statυs (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (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.