Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpich Character Dolls

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpich Character Dolls[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)

I've done my own WP:BEFORE and the most substantial coverage I can find is this. I'm not seeing enough sources that would qualify under WP:NCORP. There's some further context at User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Simpich2 (03:02, 29 July 2023). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient publicity in the byline media: [1], [2], [3]. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some of the text looked a little promotional, but that's easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:BEFORE suggests that the company, people involved with it and the dolls themselves are notable. The last source listed above (The Advocate) is excellent. This source is not bad [4] There's a lot of information in print, we can find some of it via TWL: [5] [6]. There's other verifiable information we can use that is not as in-depth, such as [7]. There's some travel guides with info on the company itself, would have to investigate the independence [8][9]. The article as it stands is WP:IMPERFECT but not promotional, overall it complies with our WP:PAG and does not warrant deletion. —siro χ o 00:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for finding the significant coverage I was looking for. I really wasn't able to find anything but the one source myself so I appreciate the extra eyes that were able to. Liz, does it matter if even I agree with the !keep voters at this point? Ideally I'd like their before process so I can get tips on finding what I missed, but I can query that later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2023 (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.