Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash Bag Bunch

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 redirect to Galoob. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing this result to Keep. There are four users voting for keep, having provided a number of sources. Only one user voted for redirecting and another voted for delete. Given these sources and votes I see no consensus for redirecting. Sam Walton (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Bag Bunch[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Contested WP:PROD with reason: "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources." Euryalus (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - No one stellar source, but a lot of so-so/mediocre coverage sufficient to scrape by WP:GNG. See: Toy Archive, Bogleech.com, Mel Birnkrant, Freddyinspace.com, Minifigures, 90skids, Remembering the 90s, Dread Central, Castle Geekskull review, Sequentialscribbles, Nerd Cantina, Nerd Filter, United Monkee, Retro Junk, Little Weirdos. Yeah, these are pretty weak, I know. I furthermore suspect that if someone has access to newspaper archives from the 80s they might find something a bit more WP:RS. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Galoob has a number of products/franchises listed on it's article, several with articles of their own. This is why trash bag bunch should have it's own article. While the external link may be a private site, lots of articles use them provided they offer objective and reliable information about the subject which is why i linked it. Other users are encouraged to improve the article in any ways appropriate.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks references in 3rd party sources. Coverage is insufficient to meet general notability guideliens. RadioFan (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following User:Rhododendrites suggestion, I did a quick search on Newspapers.com. Not much, but I added one source. I think there are enough sources taken together to establish notability WP:GNG when taken together. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the company There is insufficient material for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There are plenty of blogs that talk about these toys, they are being sold on eBay and I am sure there are newspapers in the early 1990s talking about these toys. Frmorrison (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2014 (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.