Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lintoy


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lintoy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:AntonioMartin with a rationale on talk from which I'll quote "distributed by... major brands... Many websites describe it as a 70's favorite brand". Fair enough, but sadly I still don't see any in-depth coverage that GNG requires, and a few sentences on fan / collector websites like don't seem close to being either reliable or in-depth. Maybe there's some list this could be redirect to (there's no referenced content here to merge right now, however). Disclaimer: I removed a spam-link that was a fake reference (to a commercial website selling some of their products). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To enable further assessment of the sources and a clearer consensus to emerge.
 * Keep - brand was distributed by Ertl, Bachmann Industries and Corgi..it also had many major airlines as customers which included some of the legendary names among airline companies. Keep in mind also they are from the 1970s-1980's, an era when the internet was not as developed as a personal tool. But there are many websites that attest to their notability.Antonio SuperBowl Dude Martin (dime) 08:40, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
 * , Websites like? Bonus points if your answer explains why they are reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I get the reliability issue, but even if I cannot find reliable sources, being mentioned in a lot of websites, even on Ebay for that matter where you can find many Lintoy being sold, means the brand at least has some notability..and notability is a lot of what Wikipedia is about...I mean if you are notable then you are worth on inclusion, right? Antponio Big Lethal Weapon films fan Martin (que que?) 22:01, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, except notability generally requires being covered in reliable sources. And fan websites or ebay don't meet such criteria. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in sources about such toys such as Die-cast Aircraft, as one would expect. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Are you talking about this 2018 book? All I see in it is a mention of the topic in the single sentence: "Often the same models are sold in different packaging under several different brand names. This mix of military and civil types carry the names Lintoy, Bachmann/Lintoy and Tomy/Lintoy Sky Tomica. (Vectis Auctions)." I don't think it meets any definition of 'coverage' I am familiar with, instead it's a trivial mention in passing. If there is more please quote relevant passages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources passes the WP:SIGCOV guideline and so is adequate for our purpose. The policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.".  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , SIGCOV example is "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." And trivial, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.". You provided one sentence in a book. Which of the two examples there does your 'contribution' of one sentence represent more closely? A book on the topic or a trivial sentence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of size but significance. The book has at least a page showing a range of models and indicating that the company partnered with Bachmann and Tomy.  We have articles for both of those and so this makes it clear that there are sensible alternatives to deletion which is policy .  As, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, we are not here to perform detailed development of the topic for the nominator's amusement, this will suffice to dismiss the deletion nomination.  The nominator has been making numerous nominations for toys lately – a fit of pique inspired by their failure to delete the landspeeder, it seems.  Our efforts have to be correspondingly economical per WP:CHOICE which advises us to "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."  That's policy too. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The keep votes suggest that sources must exist, however notability not clearly established and consensus unclear.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Comment if it is to be a redirect it should be List of model aircraft manufacturers. I agree with Andrew that this brand was pre-internet so there is hardly any coverage on the Web that showed gng at the time it operated. There are sources out there but none seem to be SIGCOV, Big Book of Toy Model Aeroplanes by Tom Millar, Collecting Corgi Toys by Mike Richardson, Die-cast Aircraft by Paul Bent Adams, plus quite a fews additions of Model Collector have small articles. They are notable and the planes are highly collectable, (some of their model cars were rubbish I had a Mercedes C111 when I was a kid) and there is lots of chat on model collecting websites. Problem is they come under WP:NCorp which is designed to stop exploitation by current businesses. I have in the past put forward a historical impact/impirtamce policy, much like WP:Basic #2, where small amounts added up to show Notability (in wiki terms) but it didn't get any take up. In the case of this company, they are notable historically as they are collected, but fail our rules. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Found this too - https://dinkytvspace.com/113-john-steeds-jaguar-xj12c/. And that they made products for Schuco toys too. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Even if we disregard NCOMPANY, how does this pass GNG? It's interesting their products are collectibles but do we have even as little as a single reliable source that says so? Otherwise, the article is not only a GNG - stretch, but OR too (based on forum posts, collector websites, and worse). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said in my first post, there is not one SIGCOV, just snippets, or small articles that don't have the depth, and so therefore does not meet our rules. It's my frustration that sometimes Wikipedia rules are wrong - this is a clearly notable closed business which is collected, but our rules say its not as we don't have SIGCOV. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Our rules can always be changed. Maybe you can start a draft for Notability (collectibles)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said I have already tried a Historical Impact/Importance rule which failed, and so far my current idea in the village pump for a Public Transport SNG has not exactly got a plethora of responses! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2021 (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.