Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:20, 3 August 2011

Mego Sonny & Cher Toys

Mego Sonny & Cher Toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

crufty, no assertion of notability, unreliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I have no personal interest in this type of "collectible". However, a Google search for "Sonny & Cher" dolls +Mego shows coverage by the Chicago Tribune in 1976 and in a number of antiques and collectibles books. Although these dolls may be little known in 2011, they were notable enough in 1976 that Bob Mackie designed the costumes. This isn't an encylopedia of things in the 21st century, it is an encyclopedia of things that remain notable after decades, centuries and millenia, because notability is not temporary. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As above (I'm the author). --87.16.92.10 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2011 (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, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep -- with very little effort I . found additional references. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think the article's name should be changed. I don't see the need to mention the name of the manufacturer, unless additional manufacturers were also to make Sonny and Cher dolls. Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: a nine-source 'refspam' for the simple fact that WP:ITEXISTS, plus a whole swathe of citations to fansites (megomuseum.com, cherscholar.com, hieroglyph.net) does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No indication on Google News/Books of reliable sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, in the interest of collegiality, you could say how you think the article should be changed, so that it conforms to what you consider merits inclusion?
  • One of the references I added was to a book, an illustrated volume on rock and roll memorability. Perhaps you could explain why you asserted "No indication on Google News/Books of reliable sources that 'address the subject directly in detail'"?
  • I disagree that the references I added merely demonstrate that the dolls existed. Rather they demonstrate that the dolls were the subject of coverage for over thirty years. People use encyclopedias to look things up. Perhaps you have forgotten that. Perhaps you already know who Sonny and Cher were/are. Perhaps you think anyone who comes across a reference to a Sonny and Cher doll should be able to figure out everything relevant to the dolls without looking up an article. If so I suggest you are forgetting that the wikipedia's readers will include lots of people who don't know who Sonny and Cher were, who don't know what a Barbie doll is, who will require looking the topic up to understand the reference.
  • Frankly I wasn't comfortable with the original references, all to sites whose notability I thought might be questioned. But I didn't have the heart -- or the energy -- to give the article a cruftectomy rewrite. I believe the quotes in the references I supplied demonstrate sufficient varied detail, over 30+ years satisfies the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that you cited.
  • I remind you that deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic, not over concerns over the current state of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1. There is no requirement whatsoever to accompany a 'delete' !vote with a statement of "how you think the article should be changed", and I view your request for such to be borderline WP:HARRASSment of contrary !votes, rather than "collegiality".
2. As the fact that "one of the references I added was to a book, an illustrated volume on rock and roll memorability" does not in any way contradict the claim that there is "No indication on Google News/Books of reliable sources that 'address the subject directly in detail'", no explanation is necessary -- and your demand for such simply amounts to further WP:HARRASSment.
3. "The Sonny & Cher Dolls were a 12 ¼ inch celebrity dolls, in the likeness of Pop rock duo Sonny & Cher." = 9 sources cited for rthe bare existence of the topic. This egregious over-citation serves no legitimate verifiability purpose whatsoever, so clearly is aimed simply at larding the article up with references to simulate notability.
4. "Frankly ma'am I don't give a damn." Short quotes don't demonstrate coverage "directly in depth".
5. Notability is based on evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", with "significant coverage" defined as sources "address the subject directly in detail". No such evidence has been forthcoming to date, so notability has not been established.

I would conclude by suggesting that you concentrate your efforts on finding reliable third-party sourcing to do more than simply re-re-re-re-re-re-verify the topic's bare existence, rather than arguing interminably with those that point out the article's deficiencies. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 01:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me, I know you are an experienced contributor, but there is one crucial point you seem to have forgotten. Opinions as to which articles should be deleted is supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic. All your criticisms focus on what you regard as the deficiencies of the current version of the article.

  Now you could say "not only does this current article suck, but I don't think it would ever be a good idea for the wikipedia to have any articles devoted to dolls, modelled after celebrities. I would never agree to this kind of article, even if documentary film-maker Ken Burns released a 12 hour documentary on them. And the reason I object to any article on celebrity dolls, no matter how well documented, is ..."

  If your objection is solely to the current state of the article, then, sorry, I have to wonder whether your "delete" opinion complies with our deletion policy. And I strongly disagree that asking you to expand on what changes you think would be necessary for you to change your mind is harrassment. If you have some blanket objection to articles on celebrity dolls I think questions aimed to get you to explain this objection are also not harrassment. For all I know if you made a good faith attempt to explain why you objected to articles on celebrity dolls maybe you would convince me.

  If you genuinely regarded my good faith comments as harrassment, let me clarify for you that illumination not harrassment was my intention.

  Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• WRT to your numbered fifth point, we know:

  • Who manufactured the dolls: Mego Toys;
  • who designed the dolls costumes: Bob Mackie, then a well known fashion designer;
  • how much they cost: $10 for the dolls, with each costume costing between $3 and $5;
  • how many outfits were available: In the initial release there were 32 separate costumes for the Cher doll.
  • that the dolls assumed significance in the gay world, with two separate articles where adult gay men reflected on how playing with the dolls as children played a role in coming to terms with their sexuality;
  • that the dolls have become high priced collectible items;
  • that adult fans continue to value and honor the dolls decades after they were made, up to taking Sonny dolls to his funeral;

  All the points I list above were from the new references, not the original fansite references.

• All the points I listed above were covered in the quotes I supplied in the references I provided.

• Yes, ideally, those points should be in the body of the article itself. However, I am a volunteer, I am not obliged to do all the work required to bring the article up good article status by myself. I thought I could rely on good faith respondents here to see that there was potential in the new references I provided and which you characterized as REFSPAM to expand the article relying on good quality references.

• No one reference included all the information above. But, taken together I believe they do cover the topic "in detail". Now if there is some detail, or set of details, you think would be required before you would agree that the references cover the topic "in detail" I call, once again, on your collegiality, and ask that you spell that out.

• I remind you that the wikipedia is a world wide project. You may think "everyone" knows who Sonny and Cher were, so everyone should be able to figure out what a Sonny and Cher doll was, without looking it up. But individuals who did not grow up where the Sonny and Cher show was broadcast won't know what it means. Individuals too young to remember Sonny Bono, too young to know Cher was ever part of a duo, and was ever anything beyond the world's hottest 60 year old cougar, won't know what a Sonny and Cher doll is. Because the dolls are still being referred to, in newspaper articles, members of those two groups may want to look the topic up in their favourite encyclopedia. Maybe all they need to know is that the dolls were the same size as Barbie dolls, and like Barbie dolls, owners could dress them up in different outfits. This is a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The New York Times says "At the American Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens, an official Monkees tambourine and a pair of Sonny and Cher dolls are currently on exhibit, so a new program of rock-and-roll movies will fit right in." They are notable enough to be in a museum. Dream Focus 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In a museum" ≠ notability. Bare mention in the NYT ≠ notability. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Weird argument. The dolls being in a museum is potentially a sign of notability for Sonny and Cher or the company that makes the dolls, not the dolls themselves. Just like most artists may be notable due to their work being featured, but that does not mean the individual work is as well. By your logic, we should also have an article on the Monkees' Tambourine.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Nicely documented article on a notable rock and roll collectible. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Say rather 'nice piece of unreliably-sourced (except for the refspam of its bare existence) WP:FANCRUFT'. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying instead: Misplaced Pages is better off with this piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I rather doubt that 'more unreliably-sourced WP:FANCRUFT' (from megomuseum.com, cherscholar.com & hieroglyph.net) equates to "better off" under any rational definition of that phrase. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The facts don't seem in dispute here and the worst case is that we'd merge with Sonny & Cher or Mego Corporation. Per our editing policy, there's no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rubbish: nothing in the article, after the opening sentence is reliably sourced -- so (i) yes it is disputed & (ii) no it can't be merged. You make no valid argument for keeping and contrary to your boilerplate, blind preservation is not out editing policy (see WP:CANTFIX). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is an obvious keep under Wiki guideline. The dolls are now a vintage item. There are enough reliable sources which support the article. I have my self added few lines giving citation.Jethwarp (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• What is "obvious" is that you've made no valid, policy-based argument for keeping. And no, there aren't reliable sources for anything beyond the first sentence. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is encyclopedic and not of temporary significance, that it self suffices to a Keep. further there are lot of on line books which give enough material of how the dolls were a rage among the kids of those generation and are now a collectables.Jethwarp (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment : I think the article page should be changed to Sonny & Cher dolls.Jethwarp (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Iconic collectables frequently mentioned in popular culture.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Iconic figures, well-referenced. Radiopathy •talk• 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nom's two cents First off, I might as well withdraw this nomination per WP:SNOW--it's obviously going to be kept. Furthermore, while the article has probably been justifiably saved from deletion, it still contains mostly unreliable source making most of its claims. Subtract them and you have a much smaller article made up of mostly passing references to the dolls from reliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates