Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other World


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Other World

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A toy line by a non-notable (or at least red-linked) company, referenced to two fan pages and what seems to be a passing mention in a local newspaper. My BEFORE failed to find any reliable WP:SIGCOV. Given this is referenced, I am AfDing instead of PRODing, but I have little hope this can be saved. Still, I would be happy to be proven wrong... PS. Since the company seems to have been Hong-Kong-based, maybe there are some Chinese sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Hong Kong. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Action Figure Archive has an entry on the Other World. I'm not sure what you mean "fan pages". Is there policy that fan pages are not notable? Action Figure Archive seems to be a legit repository for toy info. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Leitmotiv Please see WP:SPS. Unless the fan page is maintained by an estabilished expert who has published scholarly works on the topic, it's not considered a valid source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The current refs are undoubtedly not RS, so none of these refs meet WP:NPRODUCT or even WP:GNG. Ping me if more refs are found (I couldn't find any, partly because of the generic title). VickKiang (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's likely valid sources exist in the form of published books on vintage toys from the 80s. Until then, there's not enough online sources to save the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but if we can't find any refs, your argument might be like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And once someone finds sources, there's always WP:REFUND. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sadly, as I think those monster designs are great, I have to agree with the nomination. The sources within the article are not sufficient for establishing notability, and I am unable to find anything on the toy line or Arco Toys outside of fan sites and sales pages. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2022 (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.