Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toyetic (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Toyetic}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toyetic_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Toyetic}})

I’m nominating this article to be migrated to Wiktionary. I note it’s been six years since the original nomination, and this article is still little more than a definition and history of the word and examples of where the word may be appropriate to use. Seems it’d be more at home at wikt:toyetic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: WP:SNOW. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Move Toyetic to Toyeticness (from adjective to noun)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Toyeticness is a major factor in how profitable a story line is likely to be. When Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out (way back in late 1977), I noticed that it gave little opportunity for related toys. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Be that as it may, the material that we have seems more suited to a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. (By the way, thanks for moving this page to the right place.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that there are several examples of how the word Toyetic applies to encyclopedic topics makes it appropriate to keep on WP (though of course there's no reason a Wikictionary entry could be included too). There is probably more that can be added in discussing cross-promotional materials that are used to sell toys that relate to the concept of toyetic-ness. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Masem}} I don't understand this rationale at all. You could take any term on Urban Dictionary and say it applies to encyclopedic subjects. Other than Star Wars, which is mentioned in the apparent sole reliable primary source on the subject, every single one of these is 100% original research (not to mention the fact that they're just describing merchandising/licensing/tie-ins (all of which we have articles for). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Checking both Google Books and News shows many instances of the word in relationship to toy / (tv/film) tie in properties, and the effect they have had on marketing. (eg "The Economy of Icons: How Business Manufactures Meaning" book , "Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds" book, and more.) There's a proper article here. I do agree that all the examples need sourcing from secondary places, but it's relatively easy to find these (eg for transformers, "The Shifting Definitions of Genre: Essays on Labeling Films, Television ..." calls out both the show and movies.). This is more than just a neologism documented only at Urban Dictionary - its a term that's been used since the 80s. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• I still don’t think this belongs on Wikipedia, but if this isn’t to be merged to Wiktionary or deleted, then rename to noun (toyeticness?) per WP:AT. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Delete or Merge (but not sure to where) (see comment below) - Insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:NEO, etc. Absolutely doesn't merit a stand-alone article. The question is what the best redirect target is. Merchandising perhaps? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

::Did you look for sources? -- GreenC 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Green Cardamom|Masem}} Clearly not well enough. Taking another look, factoring in what's already linked here, I see my delete !vote was too hasty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep It seems easy to find sources for this such as:

:# [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R9C-FQO3p70C&pg=PA96 The Economy of Icons: How Business Manufactures Meaning]

:# [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zg0BBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA182 The Shifting Definitions of Genre]

:# [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_fDYJaz2m7MC&pg=PA117 Toyetic: How the Toy Aisle became a Preschool Battleground]

:Also, the article title should stay as toyetic per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody talks about toyeticness and we shouldn't go inventing words to satisfy a lesser rule. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This article is of use to WP:GAMES in providing knowledge about how some games come to market where others fail. Still needs work to make it truly useful to a casual reader but that's a different discussion. Cheers - Mattwheatley (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG. Sources are available by looking at [https://www.google.com/search?q=toyetic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=toyetic&tbm=bks Google Books search]. Need to be added to the article but not reason to delete it.

:#[https://books.google.com/books?id=kVdB8ZESrPMC&pg=PR78 How to Write for Animation], Penguin, 2003

:#[https://books.google.com/books?id=p-xgdo_-5XEC&pg=PA28 The Last Great American Picture Show], Amsterdam University Press, 2004

:#[https://books.google.com/books?id=Z09BKfo1f04C&pg=PA81 Flash of Genius: And Other True Stories of Invention], Macmillan, 2008

:..many more. -- GreenC 13:56, 8 March 2015 (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.