Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playtoy Industries

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. Consensus that subject passes WP:CORP. Withdrawn by nominator as well. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playtoy Industries

[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)

No significant coverage for this defunct company. The article has no references. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being defunct is not a reason for deleting, neither is the article having no references. I have started adding references - there is some significant coverage of the company (I have yet to determine how much), and its products are held in the collections of several museums. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren’t my reasons for deleting. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have started adding references and more info from those sources. I have found coverage of this company in Newspapers.com extending for at least 16 years, with several lengthy articles from papers in Quebec, Ontario, BC, Saskatchewan, etc. There is more to add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion of the sources Rebecca added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on improvements made during the AfD (thanks RebeccaGreen). Now clearly has significant coverage and references, and passes WP:CORP --DannyS712 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good faith nomination since there is lack of coverage in online sources but coverage in offline sources also counts. Sdmarathe (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: per new sources. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources individually don't support notability, but might do so in aggregate—I reviewed the full set of citations and scored them according to WP:ORGCRIT, then went looking for additional citations. I'm of the mind that there is only one citation (in the article) which speaks to the company itself (noting it's fate) and all others refer to individual toys or game genres. A radical thought - maybe circumstances like this call for transformation of an article from something about the company to something about the company's products (e.g. list of products type article). My source review for the article as of version 874618160:


Significant - Independent - Reliable - Secondary - Pass/Fail

1st 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (mention)

2nd 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (focus on a product)

3rd 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (mention)

4th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (mention)

5th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (focus on a licensing partner of the company)

6th 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Pass (though this is a Q&A column, seems OK; it does focus on one product and the company's demise)

7th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (about a game genre)

8th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (notes about two game products)

9th (subscription required)

10th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (about several games)

11th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (single mention, appearing to be in reference to one game)

12th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (focus on one game, no mention of the company)

13th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (focus on one game genre)

14th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (focus on one game)

15th 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - Fail (mention of one game)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SIGCOV states that " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Source 1 has the following content relating to this company: "Now, thanks to the early 1983 invention of a children's game called IQ2000 ..... the manufacturers, Playtoy Industries of Toronto, have a success - $250,000 in sales for '83. "This trivia adventure game is the biggest thing to hit our company," Playtoy president Jerry Smith told The Gazette. Since 1973 the company's most successful item has been Tri-Ominos, one of four word games it produces." That is certainly more than a trivial mention. If it just said "IQ2000, manufactured by Playtoy Industries of Toronto" that would be a trivial mention - it would not address the topic directly and in detail. But the actual article does address the company directly and give details (the president's name, the amount of sales from one game in one year, the previous most successful item, the fact that it produces that item and three others like it). I could go through most of the sources the same way. #4 gives the name of the vice-president of sales and marketing, more information about the sales of IQ2000 (almost 5 million copies sold by 1991), plus the information that that vice-president was also inventing games, and info about the game itself. I had not finished adding references - this one [1] is also about a particular new game, but has more info about the company, describing it as "a major Canadian toy manufacturer and distributor", says it introduces three new Canadian games each year, is always looking for new Canadian-invented adult parlor games, and that the sales of the new game were between 25,000-50,000 a year. I think you are setting the bar for "significant" too high. As for your suggestion about having an article about the company's products - the current article does include a list of the company's products. Why would we have a list like that without any information about the company, when that information is available? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2018 (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.