Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE action figures

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. But I can understand why this article was nominated as it is promotional and lacks sources. Those issues though can be addressed through editing not deletion and I hope some of the references brought up in this AFD discussion can find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWE action figures[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)

Not notable, barely any references to verify the infomation to the article. Fails WP:GNG. SMBMovieFan (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and not transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish you luck with this nom which is one-sourced and incredibly WP:PROMO, but that's all I'll say in support because this is not the easiest topic area to go into and ask for an article deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was AfD'd in 2009, soon after it was created, and people seemed to think it was notable then. Apparently there's a whole backstory here that... never made it into the article. That said:
Delete: if anyone does get around to researching that and writing it if it turns out to be notable enough, it belongs in Jakks Pacific. 3mi1y (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not notable, generally vandalized article.Tysska (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, searching through Google Scholar I was able to find tons of coverage analysing WWE action figures, while most of it is locked behind paywalls the search results indicate that this article, published in Body Image, provides SIGCOV of WWE action figures as an example of heavily muscled action figures, and a search in Google Books showcases SIGCOV in sources such as Wrestling and Hypermasculinity, published by McFarland & Company, as well as Wrestling Merchandise of the 1990s, published by Amberley Publishing. As such, this topic is a clear GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Body Image and Amberley Publishing is not notable either. SMBMovieFan (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMBMovieFan: What exactly do you mean them being "not notable"? They appear notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMBMovieFan: Unless I'm totally wrong (WaddlesJP13 please correct me if so), when has there been a requirement from WP:N that the publishing journal or website has to be individually notable? Some other criteria, including WP:NWEB's award criteria, requires the award to have a Wikipedia article. But per WP:GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I can't find anything that requires the publishing journal/publisher/website to be actually notable. VickKiang (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Body Image nor Amberley Publishing i don't think this article is Notable and it is incredibly WP:PROMO. SMBMovieFan (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why a ref is insufficiently reliable/independent/significant just because you never heard it? The publishing journal/website/book publisher company do not have to be individually notable, if you challenge its reliability you can start a thread at WP:RSN. Also, see WP:NEXIST. I'm further confused by your duplicate vote, you were the nom but voted twice. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:IDONTKNOWIT Aaron Liu (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: This is correct. It's not about the source's notability, it's about the reliability. As long as the source doesn't have a past of fabricating anything or isn't something like a forum, social site, etc., you can use it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Yeah, I expected so. IMHO refs that are obviously a peer-reviewed journal or books from RS publisher are reliable. While Body Image is AfDed it seems to be a peer-reviewed journal with editorial control, the two authors are also subject-matter experts and are authors from Kenyon College. IMO it's clear that it's RS, though if there is challenge that this is a vanity/predatory journal, a RSN discussion might benefit, but I couldn't see any red flags. VickKiang (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources Devonian Wombat listed. There appears to be WP:SIGCOV within the sources and I believe they should be cited in the article. I think a huge cleanup of the article needs to be done though, a lot of promotional/unsourced content. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per nom. SMBMovieFan (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMBMovieFan: You are nom, you can't vote again. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources listed by Devonian Wombat. The publications in question have editorial oversight and are therefore reliable secondary sources which are perfectly fine towards establishing notability per WP:Verifiability and WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three sources found by Devonian Wombat meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, hence this article passes WP:GNG, none of the delete votes have sufficiently explained why they believe that the refs are trivial, insufficiently reliable, or non-independent. VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2022 (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.