Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Customizing

: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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Toy Customizing]]=

:{{la|Toy Customizing}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Customizing}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Toy Customizing}})

Unreferenced essay. Would require reconstruction from the ground up to included reliable, secondary supporting information. Author is keen to include links to external sites in bare form, not as references. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete poorly-written essay/howto, but after deletion redirect to Garage kit, a much more encyclopedic treatment of the same topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

:* Garage kit is a different topic — knockoffs. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep The topic is notable, being documented in numerous sources. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Over three thousand Google results, showing it is a real thing. Lot of tutorials out there showing how its done. Google Book gets two results, it apparently mentioned in two different magazines. Juxtapoz, Issues 69-71‎ - Page 186, says "Toy customizing as an art form is finally beginning to grow legs in the US, but in Japan it's been a religion for years." Dream Focus 01:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:*Delete The amount of Google results is irrelevant. This is poorly written. No references. Spam/How-to. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:* The article contains no lexical content and so WP:DICTDEF is quite irrelevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::*How about WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N? SnottyWong spill the beans 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete, more like a how-to guide than an article. The original state of the article even read like borderline spam. JIP | Talk 07:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources provided. I would guess that no source could be found that discusses the entire topic in depth. Without that the article is original research. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

: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.