- 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 Model figure. v/r - TP 15:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chase figure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find anything reliable to support this concept. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here are two sources:
- William Silvester (2010). Harry Potter Collector's Handbook. F+W Media Inc. p. 19. ISBN 9781440208973. Retrieved 2011-10-07.
- "Toys: General Information / Variants, Chase and Surprise Figures". Spawn.com (McFarlane Toys official website). July 23, 2008. Retrieved 2011-10-07.
- I'm not sure that is enough to confer notability; particularly the first source gives somewhat shallow coverage; it seems to assume the reader is familiar with the term. --Lambiam 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This would be much better covered within a more general overview article on toy collecting or toy figures/vinyl figures. Since no articles directly covering those topics currently exists, maybe merge to Model figure or Figurine for now. Siawase (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering now, after seeing chase card in the article, if I shouldn't have simply redirected the article to some subject or other. But here we are. Should we look for an article to merge this in? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed the way chase card was handled too, and it looks appropriate. For now Model figure looks closest in scope as it mainly covers modern figures, Figurine is broader and this topic would likely end up being WP:UNDUE there. If someone eventually creates a more appropriate article this can always be redirected. Siawase (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Model figure seems the closest target for now. We have articles on "X collecting" where X is any of Bicycle, Book, Button, Casino chip, Coin, Comic book, County, Element, Fossil, Human trophy, Insect, Irish music, Knife, Mineral, Movies, Patch, Plant, Police memorabilia, Record, Scouting memorabilia, Sneaker, Stamp, Topical stamp, or Video game, but we appear to have no articles on the notable hobbies of Toy collecting and Figure collecting, the latter of which would have been a perfect merge target. --Lambiam 13:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed the way chase card was handled too, and it looks appropriate. For now Model figure looks closest in scope as it mainly covers modern figures, Figurine is broader and this topic would likely end up being WP:UNDUE there. If someone eventually creates a more appropriate article this can always be redirected. Siawase (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering now, after seeing chase card in the article, if I shouldn't have simply redirected the article to some subject or other. But here we are. Should we look for an article to merge this in? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's typical of toy coverage on Wikipedia (and likely many other areas.) There are still a lot of low hanging fruit articles missing. Collectors write articles on their specific interests, but a lot of the time no one gets around to writing the broader overview articles (which often would be of more encyclopedic interest.) Redeco and Repaint are two other articles that may be better off merged, but there really is no appropriate merge target. OOAK is a similar article which was already deleted. Siawase (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if this article was sourced there is still so little to say about the topic (which the article now does well) that it really should just be a sentence or two in a larger article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Model figure. --Lambiam 21:55, 21 October 2011 (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.