Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMC collectibles

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 of the nomination was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMC collectibles

WP:NOT Non-notable toys. There are models of almost every car ever made, including these rather non-notable ones. There are vast numbers of collectable objects. We don't want to import eBay into Wikipedia. John Nagle 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it neccesary to remove an article that largely mirrors a feature of collectible car magazines, a section that discusses what models and toys have been made of a car? On what basis does this article deserve deletion? Who has it offended? Why is the information contained, namely fairly specific and cited information deemed of no consequence? Is this not merely an act of malicious hostility against an editor??
I haved scanned WP:NOT and I can find no statements supporting your assertion. You may well not want to import eBay, but that policy is not reflected in the text. Is there some other place where you can cite a prohibition on a page which associates real cars with their reproductions? It DOES say that wikipedia is not to be a battleground, which you and othters appear to be trying to make it be. The list is verifiable, it is NPOV, and cited. --matador300 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Speaking for myself, I see no "malicious hostility" by John Nagle against anyone. Point of fact, he raises the issue of notability, which is per WP policy and not addressed by the above comments. I note that matador300 is in fact User:Wiarthurhu, the originator of the article in question, a point not obvious from the way the sig is designed. Tychocat 08:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - just a quick point, while I'm neither supporting or opposing this vote, you state that notability is "per WP policy". It isn't. I'm not saying that AfD's shouldn't be judged by that criterion, but it's a common mistake to assume that lack of perceived notability is actually a WP policy (the only mention of notability/importance in official policy is the CSD which states that if an article doesn't assert its importance, it's a candidate). Seb Patrick 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, current version lacks context. Would not be against finding some other place for this, at model car, Hot Wheels, or some similar place, but lists of toys categorized by the manufacturer of the origina cars they're models of does not seem to be a useful way to organize the data. Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I already have web pages on my website organized exactly this way. Fans of AMC have a place to find replicas of the full sized cars. --matador300 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete We already have coverage of Model cars, and several brands thereof. This content could be fitted into that family of articles. Wikipedia generally doesn't have exhaustive lists of collectable objects; that would be listcruft and advertising, per WP:NOT. See, for example Franklin Mint, which over several decades produced huge numbers of "collectables", including some very nice model cars. But their product list isn't in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lists of every hot wheels car made for each of the past 3 years, with wikified names where the cars have entries.--matador300 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If this was an absolutely stellar, complete and insightful description of the phenomenon, it would be OK with me - after all, there are many minor TV show characters or even pokemons (!) who have their WP entries, and they are really good and I'd say add to WP's unique breadth. But this is a rather poor attempt. I would advise the user to try to develop it in the namespace and later get some impartial users to review it before moving to Wikipediaspace. Bravada, talk - 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hey look, some other people have already modified and added to it, give it a chance folks. --matador300 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article There is a big article on Barbie that focuses on a very narrow audience, promotes one company, one product, and there are tons of eBay Barbie items. Using the same logic that is voced by those that want to delete this page, then the Barbie articles, as well as all other toy collectible pages, should also be eliminated. The WP:NOT is a guideline -- not policy. The only requirement is a Google search test. This article passes. 17.255.241.82 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - yeah, VERY narrow audience indeed... Barbie continues to have a huge influence on contemporary lifestyles in a large part of the world, is not only a huge brand and perhaps the best-selling toy ever, but also a very important icon of popular culture of the last few decades. I'd say if we were to bury a time capsule for post-WWII times, Barbie would be one of the first items that should go in. Quite the contrary to a collection of miniature cars from various manufacturers that don't even have too much in common. And please do not pretend to be more than one person, this can lead to schizophrenia. Bravada, talk - 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to add some more content to this article, but then I found this page. I did not know that the requirements included absolutely stellar, complete and insightful description of the subjects. I am new to this, but from what I have seen so far that hurdle would eliminate most of the entries in the WP. Categorizing toy cars by their original auto manufactures is very useful. I know many hobbyists that build their collections in that way. They do not want everything from a particular source, but by the type of make and even model that holds their interest. For example, topical areas are common in stamp collecting. Moreover, it looks some people hold Barbies very dear and a huge influence in their lives. I guess that Weepuls and most of the other objects listed in the toy category not only have stellar and insightful articles, but they also are more notable in our culture than part of the toy car hobby. I am learning something new! --CZmarlin 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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.