Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Stubbs (figurine)

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. With no RS being used (despite VernoWhitney even waiting 4 days before saying 'delete'!) None of the 'keeps' mention RS being available, or explain how it meets WP:N -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stubbs (figurine)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is nothing in the article to demonstrate the notability of this figurine or the series of which it is a member. Rodhull andemu 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly notable series still collected today even though out of production. Jack1956 (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These collectible figurines appear to warrant an article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This type of period objet d'art is very much the sort of thing that helps to define and describe its period and place, both for social historians and for the general reader. – Tim riley (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject seems notable enough to me Dreamspy (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could anybody please point out some secondary sources which discuss this line of figures? I seem to be turning up nothing, let alone significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there appear to be no reliable sources to establish notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I cannot find any WP:RS that confer WP:Notability, there aren't any in the article and my search shows nothing except wp mirrors. Happy to change my mind if others can actually find these sources instead of asserting the article should be kept. Bigger digger (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with Bigger Digger's assessment. There are no independent sources cited (the website of the person who created these figurines don't count) and I can find nothing substantial anywhere. It's all well and good to claim notability, but it is absolutely necessary to produce reliable, independent sources when challenged- and this just doesn't have any. Reyk _YO! 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I sure can't find any reliable sources for this subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim riley, but I would like to find some good cites. 24.97.138.94 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no RSs suggested or found, this completely fails WP:GNG. None of the keeps have put forward any other guideline or route through which this might meet WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't exactly have a notability guideline on figurines, so I'm going to go with sources (none) and the overall level of notability claimed in the article (little to none, particularly that it was discontinued shortly after being produced). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 15 September 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.