Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Figma

Add links
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. Valid arguments made to both keep and delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figma[edit]

Figma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable line of "action figures". No significant coverage found in any books, nor in any news sources. Only news coverage found is minor mentions in ANN reports that X series has a figure or Y box set comes with one, some of which is included as "refs" in the article to confirm a specific toy was released. Most of the other references are just sales listings in stores and official blog/site content. The one review quoted was a guest review for ANN, and the author, who runs a toy review site, has not reviewed any other nor posted that review to his own site. The parent company has no article, so no merge target available. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair that "someone" could possibly be a reliable source for other articles (I may raise the discussion at a later date, it requires further investigation first), but not enough to prove notability with a photo.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Okay, I need this explained clearly in order to get it through my pointy little head. If a company's products are multiply reviewed, and so are notable, how does this not imply that the company has some notability? I note by way of analogy that per WP:CREATIVE, an author of works that are multiply reviewed is deemed notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The author one is disputed (as a side note), however, if a company has multiple notable products, then it might is notable (same as said author might be notable, not is automatically notable). However, the question here are these products notable (do not appear to be). The making company might be notable, but that isn't the question for this AfD as it has no article to begin with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a article for the company was created, I have a book source to establish notability. I thought I could do the same for figma, but the book only briefly mentions the range. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly the range is popular among fans, but coverage by reliable sources is hard to come by it would seem. However there is likelyhood this could change in the future. I'm tempted to userfy this on the off chance. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google news search [1] shows quite a few results on Japanese sites. Some are self-published blogs but there appear to be some from legitimate news sites. Most (I just looked through a handful) look like announcement of releases of figures of specific characters. Has anyone looked through these Japanese sites to see if any of them has more meaty info? Siawase (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Contrary to what Collectonian says, Rob Bricken was the regular writer of ANN's Astro Toy column, not a guest reviewer, and has reviewed two Figma products as part of the column, not just one (both reviews are currently referenced in the article). Though both are of individual products, in each review he makes statements about the product line as a whole. I would consider coverage of this nature from at least two sources enough to show notability, but I don't know if it would be enough given that the coverage is only from a single source (ANN). Are there any Japanese magazines or reliable source websites that regularly cover figures like this? I would expect there to be some reliable Japanese sources covering this product line, since it sounds like one of the main product lines for this sort of figure. Calathan (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The review linked to from the Figma article gave that impression that he was only a guest reviewer. Agree, though that even if he did do two reviews instead on one, it would not show notability as its one person and one source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now multiple articles by a RS only count as one article? Could you link to the diff where guidelines were so changed? --Gwern (contribs) 19:20 19 February 2010 (GMT)
You cannot make your own notability by publishing press releases and announcements, which is what most of those sources are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are hundreds of news sources and so the topic is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And these are where? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gwern linked to some. Another 306 can be found in Google news search. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every site that talks about a series, always mentions its Figma. Plenty of news coverage as well. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this review from a reliable source [2]? It is apparently from a podcast carried by an Internet radio station [3] (and was mentioned on a list of good anime podcasts [4]), but I don't know how significant that Internet radio station is. Would it be something that would have the editorial oversight necessary for its broadcasts to be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? Calathan (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Figma&oldid=1069473337"