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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Grayskull[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Castle Grayskull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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 and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Anyway, I can't think of anything better to do here than to redirect this to Masters of the Universe, but maybe someone can find something out there that's better than the current blog / plot summaries / toy listings. I couldn't :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither link represents significant coverage on the actual topic. It's a minor footnote on the toy line rather than the actual toy or the fictional setting. You're extrapolating the statement that it's notable to fit into the definition of meeting WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" doesn't mean lots of text, it means the significance of what is being said. If it said "Grayskull is the top selling toy of all time" that is significant coverage even though it's only a few words. It says "major feature of Matell's line" is significant IMO showing how the fictional setting influenced culture. -- GreenC 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without any actual discussion on it, the relevant context is about the toy line. It’s not high selling because the set itself is special. It’s high selling because He-Man is special and the set itself was a cornerstone of it. It literally just needs a one sentence line in the main article based on these two sources. There is no content that supports the creation of an article. The need for significant coverage is definitely more about coverage relative to the size of the piece. TTN (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply incorrect that "significance" in GNG is about the size or count of words. It's intentionally vague, it can mean book length treatment, or single sentence, in the later case depending on the significance of what is being said. If a reliable source is directly asserting notability, as in this case, we don't ignore it, it's one way to determine notability. GreenC 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the only measure is a subjective interpretation of “significant” (as in how one personally interprets the weight of the statement) we’d never get anywhere. These sources give absolutely nothing from which to build an article on the topic in question. They do not provide anything separating the topic from the parent topic. It’s not a top selling toy because of any special characteristic possessed by the toy. It’s a top selling toy because of the franchise. If there are more sources talking about it on its own merit in detail, that would be your significant coverage. In a world of literal millions of toys, being one of many identified in such a way is not actually significant whatsoever. TTN (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of debate. A statement can carry significance of meaning ie. "The person is the most important in history of mankind" is significant coverage even though it is not significant length. Per GNG we also include the measure of multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the topic. My source is published by Harvard University Press. This is AfD and we are establishing if the topic is notable. As for length of wp article, some stubs can be a few sentences long, though the available sources here allow for longer length - we are not limited to only the GNG sources when writing the article, for example. You keep attacking my !vote as if Harvard University Press is the only source in the article which is strangely myopic. -- GreenC 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the only other source that actually dedicates more than a single word to the topic is the modern day CBR, a listicle factory that pumps out a mind boggling 30-50 lists every single day with little sign of true editorial oversight (compared to known unreliable source WatchMojo that puts out a comparative piddling five videos per day), Bainbridge and Cross are the only sources worth discussing. If a singular person is in fact the most notable in the world, you'd expect the sources discussing said person be above a single descriptor ("major feature", Cross) or a minor paragraph that is ultimately more relevant to the development of the franchise than this singular item (Bainbridge). Neither is a very strong defense of this article's claim to notability. Eternal stubs belong to notable stand-alone topics that are brief in scope, not fictional topics that have suitable parent articles. The entire context of this article is already very well covered in Masters of the Universe at the moment, and you could add both sources without any issue. Even if I cave and say the paragraph in Bainbridge's piece actually constitutes something major on the fictional topic itself, that's the only presented source worth anything in the article or presented in this AfD. TTN (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not business as usual; that was a best-selling toy, and the number of units it sold is relevant, real-world information. In the nomination, you asked someone to find sources that were better than blogs, plot summaries and toy listings. I found several books. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the part about the sources having non-WP:TRIVIAL coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIAL is a MOS guideline and probably not what you intended, the article has no trivia sub-section. You probably mean "significant coverage" of the GNG guideline, where the word trivia does not appear. Trivia is a pejorative term and not terribly useful -- which is why we have the WP:TRIVIAL MOS guideline in the first place, to recommend people from using it. -- GreenC 22:26, 1 September 2020 (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.
More