Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Springfield

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. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World of Springfield

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This product line fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would be very surprised if a years-long toy line with licensed celebrity voices and ongoing collector interest, based on one of the most successful, pop-culture-influencing TV shows of all time didn't get at least the low bar of coverage that we require for the GNG. This LAist piece may be a start. So might this piece, although I cannot peek behind the paywall from my current ___location. Mention of the toy line even starts off this journal article. And I suspect that action figure collectors guides and the endless array of books examining Simpsons minutiae will cover this toy line as well, but those types of works tend not to be searchable as easily online. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are a number of unofficial books about Simpsons collectables[1][2][3], so it's likely to be a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above and what looks like an academic paper discussing them. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between the Scholarly Journal Images of Organizing in Popular Culture Organization September 2008 15: 627-637,[4] noted by Cyclopia and Squeamish Ossifrage above and the rest of the source material now in the article (Refereneces and Further reading sections), there appears to be enough source content to meet WP:GNG. One of the lists was too big, so I posted it at List of World of Springfield figures and playsets per WP:SPINOUT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cyclopia and Uzma Gamal. Seems to meet WP:GNG with the extra material that has been added. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 19:37, 11 November 2012 (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.