Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bratz products (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. NW (Talk) 20:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bratz products[edit]

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

There was no indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory Bentogoa (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The other Bratz articles are probably sufficient, we don't need to dupicate the catalog, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this section from WP:LISTPURP be enough to show that this is notable? "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." It is a structured list organized chronologically. Other than that, I really have no desire to see this on Wikipedia because it isn't something I care about. It was also decided to be notable in the first AFD; although, I am fairly certain that is irrelevant. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:IINFO, this is just a big list of non-notable dolls. --Anthem of joy (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted because this is such a turn-around from the last AFD, it'd be nice to know more clearly if this is a true case of changing consensus, or selection bias by a small attendance. Another week in this case seems beneficial. Any admin that wants to close it, of course, is free to do so. Courcelles 02:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should this be shown to parties that may be interested so that they can comment? I am creating a message for all the Wikipedians who contributed to the last afd. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a useful list, just a list of non-notable items. bW 03:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced for 4.64 years and lacking any evidence of notability. — Fourthords | =/\= | 03:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list of Bratz products with no additional information, basically a duplicate of a product catalogue. No sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is neither a directory, nor a list of indiscriminate items. This article is both and therefore needs to be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:N, WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the other delete !votes here. It's just a list without any context and without any WP:RS. — Becksguy (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (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.