Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Polly Fashion Doll. Jr. Miss Fashion.

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 merge to Polly Pocket . MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Polly Fashion Doll. Jr. Miss Fashion.[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Much truncated version might be suitable for inclusion in an overarching article. This has a single reference that is not independent. Author removed an earlier PROD. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my article has very informative information, i don't understand what your talking about?? and my article is about a vintage fashion doll from the 1960s and information is very hard to find. most information I know ids from my doll collecting history and knowledge and I try including a link of a doll book were most collectors and people write blogs about fashion dolls.and vintage dolls ads. I believe this is very unfair and hateful to delete someones page for no reason. there are other doll pages of fashion dolls I don't understand the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The doll seems to have some sort of cult following, but I just can't find any sourcing that would substantiate a claim to notability, let alone an article, unfortunately. Perhaps the above editor can provide some kind of referencing, otherwise I don't see this being kept. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wrong content with the wrong sources at the wrong title, there's nothing to save, sorry. Guy (Help!) 01:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. listen don't be rude it can be saved look at this website on the dolls http://kenbarbieclones1960s-1990s.weebly.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no wrong sources these are all real facts about the doll and you don't collect dolls to know the history or have collector friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the age of the topic and the fact that this product ceased to exist a couple of decades before anything started being published on the internet, it is likely that significant coverage in reliable sources isn't online, but in print, in old magazines and newspapers. If someone has access to Lexis/Nexis, that may help settle the question. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there are other wiki pages that talk about dolls like my page and they seem not to have a problem. and what kind of website is Lexis/Nexis what can they help me with? can they find access to old news papers and doll ads company's to give me the info I need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLovesManny29: first of all WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument for keeping. Each article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what other Wikipedia articles may exist on similar topics. As for LexisNexis, we have an article on it: LexisNexis. It's an archive of print publications, but it isn't free to access. Some universities and libraries may offer access to it.

That said, @WikiLovesManny29:, is this topic related to Polly Pocket? It seems so. Perhaps this article about the vintage doll could be merged there. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polly Pocket or merge both articles to a new article called Polly (fashion doll series). The general topic of Polly fashion dolls appears to be notable enough, with Polly dolls from multiple manufacturers at different times in the past, but probably each line of dolls wouldn't be notable enough for a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC
Merge toPolly (fashion doll series). this sounds like a great idea [User talk:Anachronist|we should Merge the page together and it will include both articles together it makes perfect sense.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 10 December 2016 (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.