Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and Away merchandise

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. Courcelles (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away merchandise

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

No apparent notability outside the soap opera. It is merely a list of products, and a reader can't gain understanding of the subject that is in any way independent of the main article. I cant find any sources that would accomplish this, either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these tables can be converted into prose format. Other soap operas like Neighbours and EastEnders have similar articles – Neighbours spin-offs and EastEnders spin-offs. There is a currently a discussion to rename this article to Home and Away spin-offs. AusSoaps (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a legitimate fork from the main article on the soap opera, which is already a considerably long article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Made a further comment below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as the next option is to merge it to the series article but this may also be argued as to why so this separate article is acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment This nomination may have been a mistake on my part. However, can we source these to anything other than commercial sites selling product? It sure makes the article spammy. Boardgamegeek at least isn't selling it, but it looks to be user-generated, and therefore not a reliable source. Even the National Library, which could be an excellent source, is just a listing. What can be done to show the encyclopedic value of the subject, for instance the cultural impact? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. All the references cited are just to seller, publisher, library and other sites that prove the merchandise exists, none of them are useable for notability. The argument about Neighbours and EastEnders is just a case of WP:WHATABOUTX, I could ask the same about a Beatles or The King merchandise article or the thousands of other popular media 'things' that have spawned 'spinoffs' or 'merchandise/memorabilia/collectables'. In fact, I can feel a Merchandise wikiproject coming on, think about all those articles we can create, "May the Schwartz be with you!"(apologies to Mel Brooks) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massive collection of references, but as far as I can tell, not a single one meets WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all IMHO is pretty much WP:FANCRUFT!, Sources are pretty crap, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My original comment above in support of keeping the article was on the assumption that the contents would be reproduced in the main article on the show if the separate list article was deleted. However, after giving further thought to WP:Fancruft and WP:Listcruft, the two paragraphs in Home and Away#Merchandise and spin-offs give sufficient coverage of this topic and any attempt to put the lists into the main article can also be avoided. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2015 (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.