Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash Pack

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Trash Pack}})

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh^Talk 23:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

:: Withdrawn by nominator - Keep based on sources found, and improvements made since nomination. Jbh^Talk 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm having trouble finding sources for the toy series as a whole (despite it [http://www.ponymag.com/shop/magazines/trash-pack-magazine having its own magazine), but I was able to find several reviews for the Nintendo game from a few years ago. There's enough to assert notability for the game and it makes more sense to have an article for the toy series than it does for the game itself, so I'd say that this would merit a keep on that. I've cleaned up the article greatly since it largely relied on OR and had some issues with tone and so on. If anyone wants to flesh it out with sources I have no problem with that. The main reason I haven't is because many of the sources tend to be fairly brief. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Based on the sources now in the article I would not object to an article on the game which includes mention of the toys rather than an article on the toys that also mentions the game. It is just a matter of emphasis but the current sources seem to point to the game being notable (I know nothing about the consensus on notability for video gmaes.) rather than the figures. Jbh^Talk 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:*I'd actually argue the opposite. The game only came about because of the popularity of the toys, so it stands to reason that it'd make more sense to have an article on the toys that includes information about the game. This would also be a good idea because if we have an article on the game but not the toys, the odds are high that the toy article would be re-created. Making one article about the toys makes more sense, TBH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

::* I can support the article as it stands. Very nice job on digging up sources and improving the article. I will withdraw mt nomination above. Jbh^Talk 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.