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 most per Moonriddengirl (18:11, 9 September 2007) below, and no consensus to delete the others. Whether or not these should be merged as well is an editorial issue. Sandstein 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits

[edit]

A large group of articles for individual Beanie Babies lacking notability per WP:N. Should be either moved into a list or deleted entirely.--PCPP 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. --Gavin Collins 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Merge. Definitely not appropriate for individual little articles like this, but considering that Beanie Babies is quite short, I wouldn't object to merging much of this info there. ~~(Count this as a "delete if not merged by the time this closes" vote)~~. AndyJones 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Merge (per Moonriddengirl). May I ask if anyone here is volunteering to perform the merge if this closes, now? AndyJones 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All Not notable enough for individual articles.DCEdwards1966 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all The beanie babies article would be much more interesting with a "Lawsuits" section, into which verifiable information from all these articles could be merged. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POKEMON. Bravedog 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least most I have written most of these articles, and I proposed a WikiProject on Beanie Babies. I did not write an article on every single beanie baby, only a select few that I felt had notability. Mostly, these included those that made news or otherwise heavily impacted society somehow. I have also been unable to complete these articles myself or provide photos - I was hoping someone else would come along and do so.

What I felt would make good individual articles are beanies that were among the most sought during the fad. Also, certain events and concepts pertaining to beanies, such as Retirement (Beanie Babies), would make good articles. Xyz7890 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best approach, then, would be to merge all of this material into Beanie Babies: making it a far better and fuller article. Then, if that article gets too big, individual aspects could be split out into separate articles. See Wikipedia:Summary style. I think little diddy-articles like these will always be attacked, with some justification, for a lack of individual notability; whereas I don't think anyone here doubts that Beanie Babies are sufficiently notable for an article. AndyJones 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge some. Some of these articles may do well on their own. In particular, I think the Teenie Beanies and Retirement articles are great. It would be best if some more time, say a month or so, be given before taking any action. Perhaps this debate will help spark more interest. Any articles that cannot be expanded beyond what they are today should then be merged into the Beanie Babies article or into one another. For example, instead of having articles on Peanut or Quackers, there can be an article simply on the beanies of high value. Tatterfly 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into fewer articles. The original article on Maple was made into "Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies." The same can be done with others OGLY 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but especially the lawsuit one, as that is NN as a set of lawsuits and listcruft to boot. Bearian 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with merging: From the scope of this discussion, it has become clear to me that the majority want these articles merged. I am planning to start out by creating a new article titled Rare Beanie Babies that will be a merger of several other articles here in question. Xyz7890 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just started it. I just created the article. So far, it contains sections about Peanut and Quackers. I am trying to see what else may belong in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz7890 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is complicated. :) I think primarily merge into fewer articles, as OGLY says. There's one for deletion, one for keeping, and one for renaming, in my opinion.

Merge The Original Nine Beanie Buddies into Beanie Buddy--neither page is long enough to merit separation

Merge Teddy (Beanie Baby) into Beanie Babies (but, note, as written it contradicts The Original Nine Beanie Babies). Also merge into Beanie Babies: Counterfeit Beanie Babies and Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits. These topics may merit inclusion in the parent page. Division is not necessary.

Merge Peanut (Beanie Baby), Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Quackers (Beanie Baby) and Clubby into the new page Rare Beanie Babies.

~~Delete~~ Redirect The Original Nine Beanie Babies--I've incorporated that information into Beanie Babies and as it is only a list it should not violate copyright.

Keep Teenie Beanies, though the article needs improvement.

Rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) into Retired (Beanie Babies) and Merge Princess (Beanie Baby) into that.

Primarily I think this is a matter of organization. But note that in most instances, references need improvement. I see primarily references to an unofficial website. --Moonriddengirl 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the second time these have been put up for deletion. I don't like the use of multiple deletion in this circumstance. I say Keep them all until the person who nominated makes a case for deletion of each one. SolidPlaid 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AndyJones asks above if anybody will merge as proposed. Sure, I will. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Incidentally, having merged The Original Nine Beanie Babies to Beanie Babies, I think it's better to redirect it there, rather than deleting as you proposed. AndyJones 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reset indent)Okay. I have not created redirects because I do not want to complicate the AfD process if others want to see the articles as are. However, I have merged the following--

Into Beanie Babies--The Original Nine Beanie Babies (no copyright issue; information already there); Counterfeit Beanie Babies, Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits, Teddy (Beanie Baby)

Into Beanie Buddies--The Original Nine Beanie Buddies

Into Rare Beanie Babies--Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Clubby

Into Retirement (Beanie Babies)--Princess (Beanie Baby)

Already merged--Quackers (Beanie Baby), Peanut (Beanie Baby)

If Teenie Beanies and Retirement (Beanie Babies) are to be allowed to survive, I think that's the lot of them. If the AfD is closed without objection, I will place redirects on the ones that I've merged. And I will rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) to Retired Beanie Babies. I will also add references to these subpages to the original Beanie Baby article. --Moonriddengirl 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. AndyJones 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close now? Looks like we have a consensus. AndyJones 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like consensus. --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve All: Though I originally created these articles about Beanie Babies, I never intended for the project to be a one-person operation. I was hoping from day one that others would get involved, provide more info and references from their expertise, and best of all, photos of these beanies, which unfortunately, I cannot provide myself. I would like to see several more people join the Beanie Babies Wikiproject I proposed and to improve all these articles. Xyz7890 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all are we an encyclopaedia or a joke? NBeale 23:03, 15 September 2007 (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.