Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tutti and Todd (Barbie)


 * 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   keep. Merge proposal/discussion can take place at the talk page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tutti and Todd (Barbie)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family which contains most of the same information. It would perhaps make sense to turn the latter into more of a table format. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 07:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep - I voted to merge/delete on the other Barbie related stubs up for nomination, but this is one I could see keeping. The first reason being that they were introduced back in the mid 1960s as part of the "vintage" Barbie line and have subsequently become highly valuable collector's items (as well as all of their associated friends/clothing/accessories), much like the vintage Barbie, Ken, Midge, etc, dolls of the same era.  The second reason being that the Stacie and Todd twins which were reintroduced in the 1990s are commonly thought to be the same set of twins (with "Tutti" thought to be simply renamed to "Stacie").  Todd appears to have been used as recently as 2008 and Stacie appears to be a current doll (which means their chronology has spanned over more than 40 years), so I would suggest that the "Stacie" article could be merged with this one, and the history of Tutti & Todd/Stacie & Todd could be explained on this page with "Stacie" redirecting here.  I admit this article is relatively "stubby" as of now, but I know I have at least one book specifically about vintage Skipper, Tutti and Todd dolls (not just Barbie books that mention them in passing) that I could try and dig up to work on this page and once we've added the Stacie & Todd chronology, I believe this page could have some merits to keep as its own stand-alone article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These names do seem to have a bit more history, but again, I'm not seeing here that there's substantially more information or awareness of these dolls than of others in the F&F list. Most of what's in this article is repeated in the list article, and adding what's omitted wouldn't overly expand the latter. Indeed, the list is better in one aspect: it's much clearer about the existence of two distinct Todds. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Crakkerjakk, with kudos. Mabalu (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion provided by nominator. Carrite (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above, especially per Crakkerjakk  Theopolisme TALK 02:20, 10 July 2012 (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.