Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad Sam & Honey

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 Redrafitfy - Move back to draft. There's clear consensus that this does not belong in mainspace.

Beyond that, opinion is split about whether to delete it outright or move it back to draftspace. This debate is more about how we treat draft space and stale drafts in general than the article subject in specific. I'm going to move this back to draft. If somebody feels it should be deleted, bring it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Sam & Honey

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

Non-notable toys. Fails WP:GNG. I failed to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Some blog sources exist in search but their reliability and significance are doubted. — Za wl 08:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this as a draft and did not move it into the article space largely due to the lack of sources to establish notability. I personally think that the brand or characters are likely notable for how long they've been around and the amount of merchandising they've been on, but I also could not find significant coverage in sources to demonstrate this. If they exist, they are probably covered in pre-Internet coverage and industry media. —Ost (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-draftify I have a major problem with the following sequence of events happening within the space of a day (intermediate edits trimmed from log):
1. 03:15, 4 September 2017‎ Legacypac (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,613 bytes) (+89)‎ . . (Submitting (AFCH 0.9))
2. 22:48, 4 September 2017‎ Sulfurboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,613 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Sulfurboy moved page Draft:Sad Sam & Honey to Sad Sam & Honey: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9))
3. 01:21, 5 September 2017‎ Zawl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,984 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad Sam & Honey. (TW))

That is, the original editor had not submitted it for AfC, but someone else did, a second editor approved it, and a third editor immediately took it to AfD. That's not a fair or appropriate process for an article that the creator felt was not yet ready for mainspace. Pinging Legacypac, Sulfurboy, and Zawl to comment here if desired. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-draftify, to be completely honest, with how backlogged AfC is, I trusted that Legacypac had already made good judgement on assessing the article without critically looking at it myself. This is not to pass blame in anyway to Legacy, I'm just as at fault for not further reviewing the page, and won't make this mistake in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page became eligible for G13 due to the expansion of G13 recently. I could have easily had it deleted. While reviewing the stale draft list I've taken to submitting promising drafts to AfC as a way of at least postponing deletion, often getting them published, or at worst getting a rejection that will guide the creator or other interested editor in improving them. In this case I think the long history and substantial sales justify a pass on GNG. Since most of the history is preinternet and the subject is not typical newspaper or academic material, I'd not expect a ton of easy to find sources. One would need to look in print toy trade publications. Blog hits would indicate a hobbiest following of the brand, which makes it notable, even if the blogs are not individually RS. This is good encyclopedia material, not promotional, and not problematic in any way. It surves the reader interested in old toys, a sizable group as an aging population seek connections to their childhood. Note I feel that AfC should pass drafts that are on appropriate topics and do not have serious problems - let the big pool of editors work on pages (many of whom have specialised interests) and let AfC act as a garbage filter. This is far from garbage, though not perfect, but should not be deleted or relegated to draft space where no editor with a suitably narrow interest to really do the topic justice will ever find it. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So Legacypac, I assume you're following the 'promising drafts' template discussion more closely than I am. Would sticking it back in draftspace with a promising draft template work to assuage everyone's concerns? Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt it User:Jclemens I've only seen the promising draft template used a handful of times (can you find how many translutions it has?) I've yet to see any of the same few editors that oppose changes to policy to improve draft space cleanup, oppose deletion of drafts at MfD, and demand more complex systems for handling drafts actually do ANYTHING to improve and promote these "promising drafts" they insist are being willy nilly deleted. Maybe I've missed something but I've got hundreds of such pages on my watchlist that have seen great protests against deletion made, but almost no one ever edits them. I've personally fixed and gotten promoted more promising drafts than all protesters combined. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this product meets WP:GNG. Few mentions in passing don't constitute notability. At long limb, maybe merge to Applause (toy company)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redraftify per ATD. ToThAc (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (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.