Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s Topps (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Topps[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are a number of these articles, which I nominated for PROD, and was surprised when these two were ineligible for PROD due to past AfDs. These pages serve as essentially a catalog, which Wikipedia is not. For those who trade baseball cards, you'll recognize this as similar to a Beckett pricing guide, but without the pricing. It's not encyclopedic material. The sourcing presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1971 Topps that saved the 1971 Topps page from deletion is insider publications and does not demonstrate significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears we would keep articles on absolutely anything back in 2008. There is nothing notable here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Our standards have greatly improved in the past 13 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates several features of WP:NOT. Pure cruft and I like sports cards. SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - clearly this is not what Wikipedia is for Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, it violates several features of WP:NOT. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non Notable Company. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The company itself, Topps, passes GNG easily. MarioGom (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles (as well as a fair amount of similar articles in Category:Topps), per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 19:23, 29 March 2021 (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.