Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer 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 keep. After a rewrite, consensus is that the concept is notable enough. Sandstein 10:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer toys

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept. No sources found, name is vague. Tagged for notability since April. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only took a minute to find a good source for this: Media Myths, Children's Nightmares, "...the demonic doll movie, a popular sub-genre in contemporary horror. Stories of toys that come to life can of course be found throughout the history of children's literature...'". Warden (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's not exactly apparent to me how your source relates to the topic at hand. Could you supply a page number or something linking that book to "Killer toys"?~~ Nevermind, I'd missed your quote. Rutebega (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in a book is not the basis for a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it only took a minute to find it. I spend another minute and immediately find another reference in the Directory of World Cinema, "His killer-toys movie, Dolls (1987), is reasonably entertaining but does not have the spirit or anarchy of the best example of the genre, Child's Play (1988).". This confirms that we have a recognised genre here. Warden (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there's an entire book called Toys That Kill. That's about dangerous toys which can literally kill children. At the very least, then, we should have some sort of dab page to assist readers who are looking for information about toy safety or Chucky. Warden (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is definitely very badly written. Other than a lead, it's basically just lists, with a continuation on the talk page. If any notability is found, the thing would probably have to be completely rewritten anyway. However, it certainly seems to be a very common theme in horror films and other media, so I'm surprised to see a lack of sources documenting the concept. Frankly, I hope some reliable sources are found and the article is improved, because it seems to have potential, if nothing else redeeming. Otherwise, it can always be recreated when those sources become available. Rutebega (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft and a synthesis. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There certainly is something there. But until other sources point it out WP can not have an article. BTW I skimmed through the list and found one mistake. The Preacher's Wife featured a toy truck that was repaired supernaturally, but didn't have any killer properties. BigJim707 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many things wrong with this article, let me count the ways,

It is not about toys that kill.
It's about fictional toys that threaten humans.
Therefore even the title is wrong
The lead is pure WP:OR
The lists are "what can we think of when we've had a few pints down the pub"
It ignores the roots of the film and TV "killer toys" which must go back further in human history.
Must be one of the few articles that says see it's own talkpage for more information.
As for the categorization, I assume some of them are meant to be humorous.

I agree with Rutebega, there will be lots of interesting scientific study and research into the phenomena, ditto in regard to film, tv and book (including nursery rhymes!) and a good article can be created with a few examples of the most familiar in the idiom, but most of all with references. Deletion is a kindness at the moment - if anybody wants to userfy for the time being, I'd have no objections. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing. Like others that !voted to delete, I was asked to reconsider. I appreciated the note and did not consider it canvassing. However, what I do find to be canvassing is a listing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list i.e. a "come and help me this article needs saving" amongst a group of editors whose avowed aim is to save as many articles as possible, irrespective of any redeeming factor, is offensive and not in the spirit of WP. By all means get there before the AfD, but after, let's show a little decorum, please.

I won't change my !vote, because my comment above, "Deletion is a kindness at the moment" still stands in spite of the good work done. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where the Article Rescue Squadron has avowed an interest in saving articles irrespective of any redeeming factor? From a brief scan-through of their pages I get a completely contrary understanding of their purpose. Their mission statement appears to emphasize article improvement through the addition of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Am I missing something? If significant coverage in independent RSes can be located before the AfD comes to a close (as seems to have been done in this case), then how can that possibly harm the AfD? AfDs aren't supposed to be votes based on the current condition of the article. They're supposed to be evaluations of the topic's potential to be a Wikipedia article. Unless there is some evidence that the ARS members have been asked to !vote "keep" here at the AfD as meatpuppets, I can't see any evidence of canvassing or loss of decorum whatsoever. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidlines, and is largely WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it were actually about "killer toys," and had reliable sources to back it up, then this could have been kept. Unfortunately, it's just full of OR. I know that AfD is not cleanup, but in this case, it's probably better to start all over again. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per improvements by Erik. However, it should be listified. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but treat as a list, either as List of films featuring killer toys or List of films featuring killer dolls (since that's the most common alternative term). Google Books Search shows the term "killer toy" or "killer doll" used in a genre sense, and I've used results to reference some examples here. I think that Warden's Moving Images reference and my Monsters in the Movies reference shows that per the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I scrapped the entire previous article since there were no references and started from scratch, so I hope other editors can assess this topic based on this new version. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, the list could be renamed "List of fictional works featuring killer toys", as in my research, there were a few mentions of killer toys in literature, like in at least one of Stephen King's short stories. Otherwise we can keep it film-centric as it was before. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "List of films with killer toys" or something to that effect, generally per Erik. The article is badly misnamed, but there's probably some value there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Warden. The notion of killer toys as a literary theme is long-established, sourced and carries as much weight as zombies, evil clowns and vampires. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to "List of films with killer toys" per Writ Keeper subsequent to Erik's complete overhaul. The previous article was a disaster but the current version is properly sourced and appears to demonstrate notability. Giving a title that matches the content is a good idea and keeping the list limited to films as it had been in the past and as it is now is important to keep it from becoming unmanageable. Lists of items in the unbounded entirety of fiction (in all media) tend to get extremely messy. -Thibbs (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing - I see that all of the delete votes have been canvassed...and now we have a sudden swath of NEW keep !votes that all showed up on the same ~~day~~ HOUR (3 within ten mins of each other). Editors, if you were canvassed you should mention that in your vote in the interests of full disclosure. Canvassing is a no-no. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not canvassed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I saw the section title of Erik's post on TPH's talk page, which I have on my watchlist for some reason or other (I very seldom remove pages from my watchlist, so I have all sorts of things in there.) I didn't really read the notice; I just saw the name of the page and clicked on it, expecting to roll my eyes and vote delete on a stupid, hysterical "these toys could harm your child!" OR scare piece. To my surprise, that wasn't what the article was about at all, and to my further surprise, the article actually looked worth keeping. (Hence my vote that the article is really terribly named, and needs to be renamed if it is to be kept). I wouldn't consider that canvassing, as the post wasn't directed at me or anyone else who hadn't yet opined at this AfD. YMMV, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I only contacted editors who were already involved in the discussion. I overhauled the article, and I wanted to ask editors to revisit the new version. Per WP:CANVAS, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The closing consensus should be based on this better version, not the previous one. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody contacted me - I have history at the article from last April and it's been on my watchlist since then. I was actually just about to remove it. For the record I don't allow myself to be canvassed. -Thibbs (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I approve of Erik's rewrite, and will let this AFD ride out since it has some unchanged deletes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stone cold KEEP, and I was not canvassed. The revamping after the last "delete" above has given us an article much improved over the one first brought to AFD.... and even the nominator approves the improvements. Well done! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Erik did a good job, and I made some changes myself. I think this could exist as its own article, as opposed to just a list of films or fiction featuring killer toys (though if you want to create said list, go right ahead). There's still a lot of room for improvement, especially if the article isn't renamed and turned into a list, but I don't think it's a candidate for deletion anymore. Rutebega (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though this article could use a bit of work, the genre is a valid one. Should some producer (the traditional word for "filmaker") come up with a new film with "killer toys" as a plot device Wikipedia readers can see "there is nothing new under the sun".Foofbun (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Maybe we could create a category for this...? Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, bur a WP:PERNOM is unhelpful as the concept of an evil toy or set of toys being a significant and notable plot device has been repeatedly shown (IE: Puppet Master, Child's Play, Small Soldiers, et al.), and multiple sources for the notability of evil toys as a plot device have been offered and used. The thing some here might agree on is that the article name could benefit from clarification, as this article is not indiscriminate and meets WP:SALAT and WP:LISTPURP and other applicable criteria quite well. As the nominator himself agrees with the rewritten article, perhaps you could be more specific in why you think the list fails our inclusion criteria Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to list. Erik's rescue of page is sourced and the topic is notable.Jenphalian (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Warden has proven with sources he found, its a established genre. Just rename it to Murderous Fictional Toys or whatever seems best. Dream Focus 00:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because someone wrote a book called "toys that kill" or something doesn't remove the fact that this list depends heavily on OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this argument. The article had a lot of original research before, but I overhauled it so all content is referenced. There's no original research in it now. Is there a problem with the article as it stands now? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.