Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show'N Tell

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Show'N Tell

[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)

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. ♟♙ (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore notable. I can do a source assessment to show my reasoning if you'd like. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please let us see what you found. I couldn't really find much, but I'm certainly not infallible. ♟♙ (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: any progress on the sources? ♟♙ (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, I'll start a source assessment now. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 16:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending FormalDude's efforts. I'd think most trademarked things like this would probably have enough to be notable in some way, but maybe that's just my optimism. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Below is my source assessment. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing this! I need to figure out how to do that. As you correctly mention, the trademark listing isn't useful for satisfying GNG, but it is helpful for Verification the product exists. Unfortunately, advertisements are primary sources, non third-party, so can't be used to satisfy the GNG, but could be used to verify facts about the product itself. The toytales.ca website is unlikely to be considered a WP:RS, so not helpful to satisfying GNG but would perhaps make a good WP:EL. So this leaves us with the two Billboard pieces, which are both Reliable and third party, however I'm not sure there's enough detail there. The second one is a very brief article about several products, not just the Show'N Tell. The first one does seem to cover the product in reasonable detail, but I'm not sure just one source is enough. Let's see how the AfD plays out. ♟♙ (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just used this template to create it. Below I have updated the source assessment table based on your comment. However, I still think toytales.ca satisfies GNG. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FormalDude.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 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.