Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Don's 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 no consensus, default to keep. Neil ☎ 09:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Don's Toys

Uncle Don's Toys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I did not speedy this due to the author and how they are not a new editor. (Wouldn't pass speedy anyway, due to assertion of notability) I feel this fails wikipedia criteria for articles as a google search fails to get any other news coverage and although it does provide who the "celebrity clients" are, there are no refs to back that claim other than one article. Phgao 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• 'Keep'. Read the article. It has news coverage, it has the celebrity clientele listed. I don't believe this. It goes and I go. It's that simple. PMDrive1061 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Forget it. I quit. I've blanked the page. PMDrive1061 02:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Such a shame that your last act must be one of vandalism :( ---- WebHamster 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I never meant for this to happen. Here is what I wrote to the editor:

• Yes I realise you are angry, and I too have read your "article" on your previous Wikipedia experience, but that is why I send it to AfD to get the views of other editors. Something that is notable for me in my area, does not entail it has worldwide notability, or I may think something is notable, but the overwhelming majority may not think that. But you are free to offer your views on the AfD page. Thanks! Phgao 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• (didn't get to send this as retired tag was up) Alright, I hate to see a good editor go, but it is wise not to use Wikipedia to make a point and leave, however it is entirely your own decision. Phgao 02:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems notable to me. The list of celebrity clients, and the fact that "Uncle Don" was made the caretaker of Sinatra's Lionel train collection, are both notable to me. I reverted the page blanking, and would like to see this AfD go forward, no matter what the outcome. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  As per below discussion that is not notable enough for the article to stay, re Iridescent's arguments etc. Phgao 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: It has the makings of notability and there is already one independent non-trivial source, I'm sure there are others. I unblanked the "spitting out of the dummy" page deletion/vandalism. ---- WebHamster 02:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  Thinking you are sure is differnt from being sure; after searching by me and other parties no other sources could be found. Phgao 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: per WebHamster 203.220.106.95 06:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: While one source is fine, and I never like to rely on Google for notability claims as it can be misleading; [1] has 4 hits and after broadening my news search I still can't find any more articles. Phgao 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I repeated your search with the apostrophe taken out and it popped up a couple of others, this one, though arguably not WP:RS does refer directly to the celebrity list. ---- WebHamster 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes that just refers to the same article cited. Phgao 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It is patently impossible to constantly come up with new content for this site. So, one spends time here after awhile playing whack-a-mole with vandals and trying to improve other articles. I recalled seeing this in the PE; I used to know Don Du Bose who told me himself that he was in charge of Sinatra's trains. I'm sorry that there's no online reference to that fact. I have never knowingly inserted fals information to this site, why would I do so now? So, I thought, why not an article? I can link it to the Riverside County category since I admit that no one would otherwise come seeking the subject. I knew that going in. That AfD header was on the article before I could even add the second external link. Frankly, if it stays, fine. I hope it will be of use. - PMDrive1061 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes as Wikipedia has a policy of quickly deleting anything if it fails the guidelines to prevent the author from doing more work on it. And that is why I AfDed it. I'm not saying you are giving "false" info. Phgao 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• A comment to PMDrive1061: Bringing an article to AFD doesn't imply that it will be deleted right away, or that it's a condemnation of the author. AFD is a place to debate the merits of an article. Sometimes it's possible to improve an article while it's at AFD so it will become a better article, with more notability. As well, remember that no individual editor owns an article at Wikipedia -- we're a community project. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Another Comment: Just read the news article, and yes it does state "Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Neil Diamond and Red Skelton poked around in Uncle Don's Toys when locals were "villagers" in this famed winter resort." But I still fail to see how a shop a celebrity visited can be used to back a notability claim when there are not further news coverage available. Phgao 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Has notability, but just so - mostly colloquial. Covered in a paper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A side note, boo to PMDrive1061 for the dramaqueenery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I don't like to leave things unfinished, may I point out that I am neither a drama queen nor a vandal. Thanks so much for the insults. I blanked the page since I was the only one to have made any edits to it, which is perfectly acceptable as I understand the rules. If it stays, fine. If it goes, fine. I'm not voting one way or another on this. --PMDrive1061 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think other editors are seriously calling you a vandal, and as such to take them as insults is going too far, but what you did is imo unacceptable (making a WP:POINT) and would not be tolerated in real life unless you were a kid. Discussion is always the best alternative and can lead to an amicable solution, whereas having a fit is unwise. Phgao 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is true. However, the big problem isn't communication but the lack of face-to-face contact. We don't communicate in real time. So, misunderstandings happen with a lot more frequency here than in real life. I blew up. I admit it. It certainly isn't because of my age; I'm going to be a grandfather in a couple of months. It's the lack of personal, real-time contact which can lead to these sorts of issues. So, in all fairness (and to get this discussion back on track), I maintain a no vote on this as author. --PMDrive1061 06:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —Chris 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have project tagged the article to generate interest and listed the AfD in places, this article seems interesting, but I have to stand with Dennis on this one, and leaving sarcastic "gee, thanks" notes on Userpages is poor form, pmd1061. Anyone who's been here any length of time will eventually have an article come up for AfD, I did my first week and saw an opportunity to tighten up my article because of the points being raised. Wikipedia is not a take-my-ball-and-go-home-then type of place. Chris 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• For the benefit of others, Chris refers to this Phgao 06:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it was meant to be lightly sarcastic, but the "kick in the butt" comment related to my seeing how foolish I was acting. After rereading it, I see why it was misconstrued. No major jab intended. --PMDrive1061 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• This wasn't very civil either, but you have elaborated there. Phgao 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I recognize that PMDrive1061 is upset but WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument against deletion. The only question here is notability and I'm struggling to see it. The primary claim seems to be that celebrities visited, but notability is not inherited. It's basically a textbook example of WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as it fails WP:CORP. Not a notable place, either. -- Mikeblas 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP as it has no particular claim to notability as a store. The "celebrity" argument is misleading; any shop near a celebrity's house is likely to have a celebrity clientele. Unless the store provided something relevant to the celebrity's career (Elvis's guitar shop, say), there's no reason for notability to be inherited. (If they provided toys to someone famous for using toys, there'd be a case for notability.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - For example, just off the top of my head, say, toy trains to Frank Sinatra? ---- WebHamster 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If Sinatra was famous for his toy trains, yes - unfortunately, he isn't. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They were famous enough to make the Chicago-Sun Times. Maybe that's not famous enough for WP though eh? ---- WebHamster 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How did the trains affect Frank's career? I don't think they did; they might have given Frank great personal satisfaction, but didn't teach him to sing or write music or dance or act. -- Mikeblas 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you say just off the top of my head when we all know it was part of the article and you did not make it up, wouldn't it be better to offer more transparency and just say that was what the article says? Phgao 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Irony and/or sarcasm would fit the bill wouldn't you say? ---- WebHamster 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed.... it was late at night; the irony meter wasn't working ;) Phgao 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: keep per RepublicanJacobite. 203.221.238.232 00:00, 21 October 2007 (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.