Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedtime toy

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 Comfort object. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedtime toy[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)

As usual, deprodded without explanation or addressing of PROD rationale from Piotrus: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar."

Children use a variety of toys for a variety of reasons, I do not see what makes the concept that Stuffed animals can be slept with an independently notable topic, or sources that show this definition isn't original research. Reywas92^Talk 04:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale. I did WP:BEFORE for this term and didn't see anything tht goes beyond WP:DICTDEF. I didn't see any study or another form of in-depth treatment of this type of a toy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claims made above that there are no sources are false, as usual. For example, see The Guardian, which has run several features on the topic. There are scholarly studies too and a professor tells us that about a third of adults sleep with soft toys. So it's time to fess up. Me, I'm the sort of geek whose soft toys are micro-organisms such as Yersinia pestis, aka the Black Death, but I don't take those to bed. When I was young, I would read The Children's Encyclopædia in bed but, nowadays, I play with Wikipedia instead, of course! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, my claims are not false because as usual, this source does not provide separate notability for the made-up "bedtime toy" construction, but rather the main articles Stuffed toy and Comfort object, because those are the actual notable topics. The former now has Stuffed toy#Use, for how people use them, with a link to the latter, and a redirect for this unused term is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stuffed toy#Use - As Reywas92 said, that is really the main article on the topic, which does not need to be WP:SPLIT into an independent article. Even the source that Andrew provided above is referring specifically to stuffed toys, and does not even use the phrase "bedtime toy". While its not super common, I do see that term being used in some sources as another name for the topic, so I think that a Redirect to the main article would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am also fine with the target being Comfort object as proposed below, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Comfort object. There's some information, a nice image, and a need for a redirect because it is a plausible tern. Bearian (talk)
Merge into Comfort object as proposed by Bearian. Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2021 (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.