Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etikoppaka Toys


 * 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. The consensus is that this subject does not meet the notability criteria.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Etikoppaka Toys

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable as far as can be ascertained. It's not clear from the article whether the subject is a company or products. I began by tidying up this article amd detailing the refs, but later came to the conclusion that there was nothing in it to suggest notability. The three refs (all from The Hindu) mention Etikoppaka Toys in passing, but it is not the main subject in any of them. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Toy List of wooden toys, which presently has no mention of this unique product. This will improve the merge target article. Some coverage exists, but the depth of coverage does not appear enough to qualify a standalone article per WP:GNG (e.g. sources found:, , , , ). Note to closer: I have renamed the article to Etikoppaka toys, because sources do not refer to them as a proper noun. North America1000 06:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure they are "unique" - they are just lacquered wooden toys and others exist all over the world. Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Etikoppaka toys are quite unique, in part because it was reported in this source that they would be listed on the Indian Geographical Indications Registry . North America1000 09:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Quite unique" is vague. Something is either unique or it isn't; there are no degrees of uniqueness. Emeraude (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Indian Geographical Indications Registry doesn't list just anything. North America1000 11:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but it doesn't make lacquered wooden toys unique. Emeraude (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure it does, because these toys are indigenous and culturally-related to a particular area per the unique styles they are created in. For starters, see this image, this image, this image and this image. North America1000 22:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand what "unique" means. To be unique there must be no other lacquered wooden toys at all! Clearly there are. That does not mean that these particular toys are not special; they may well be, hence the geographic indication, but it is not because they are lacquered wooden toys. Nowhere in the article is there any suggestion of uniqueness. Emeraude (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They're unique relative to their pending listing on the Indian Geographical Indications Registry, for which other wooden toys are not. I would say merge to wooden toy, but no article exists at this time. My merge !vote stands. North America1000 09:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * N.b. I have slightly modified my !vote above. North America1000 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and mention however needed because there's nothing currently particularly convincing for its own article, we can wait for a restarted better article when the time comes. SwisterTwister   talk  20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. Don't have an opinion on which is better, but this clearly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (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.