Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls' toys and games

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. After two full relistings, no conenseus has formed regarding an outcome for either article. Concerns presented herein can continue to be discussed on the article talk pages, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' toys and games

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page and the associated boys' toys and games have a troublesome history. The focus is not clear, they are full of unsupported platitudes and bad science, they are largely orphaned and often hijacked by companies selling gendered toys. They both need to be burned with fire. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also: Girls' video games. wumbolo ^^^ 23:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - Certainly these topics meet general notability due to the prevalence in retail, popular culture, personal experiences, and psychological study. Whatever problems the OP thinks happened in the past and any concerns about the present state of the articles is immaterial because they represent opportunities for improvement, not justification for removal. The basis of this nomination seems more like axe-grinding, especially considering the OPs recent tag-spamming sessions (and failure to elaborate in-line or on the talk pages). -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, @Netoholic:, but what you refer to as "tag-spamming" was an attempt to highlight some of the problematic areas of these articles. Can you please assume good faith rather than pouncing on me and accusing me of having an axe to grind? The only axe I have to grind is that these articles are an incoherent, and often politicized and/or promotional, mess. The pages were recently renamed and it made the situation as I can see it worse rather than better. Merging the information here to a single discussion of gender aspects of toy design at Toy#Gender as @Izno: suggests, or a new article (not split into boys and girls) would be a far better way to handle this than your suggestion of sitting on your hands waiting for somebody to grasp the "opportunity" to "improve" them. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't capture the proper scope of these articles. Firstly, it leaves off the "and games" part of this, in that the articles also cover simple games children prefer. But more importantly, these shouldn't be about "toy design" at all, but instead toy preferences. It is of course true that some children (today or throughout history) will create their own toys and games, not always have them "designed" for them or have it be about retail and advertising. You have yet to give any specific example of how these articles are people politicized or used for promotional purposes. You've asserted that, but not given any evidence... and its irrelevant even if true because that would be a fixable problem and nothing to do with the deletion proposal. -- Netoholic @ 10:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please, tell us exactly what the "scope" of these articles is or "should" be. Oh, and look what happened literally just this minute: somebody changed a promotional link that was masquerading as research to point to another promotional site. You don't seem to have been involved in the development of these pages at all, so I find it curious that you can have such strong opinions about this? Oh, wait a minute. Your talk page suggests you have an axe to grind about deleting pages. Hypocritical much? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it leaves off the "and games" part of this and instead toy preferences Do not make the error of assuming I would not support these as options. I honestly don't care about the exact scope (c.f. gender in toy design or similar emphasis here)--my comment is clearly oriented at "there shouldn't be one for each gender". :) --Izno (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote and moving to Neutral per rationale presented by Izno, below. Weak keep both. The article really skirts the line of WP:OR and the sources are underwhelming. That said, the topic of gender-specificity in games and toys for girls and boys has received enough coverage (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]) to, I think, sustain an article of this type. However, I'm not convinced we need both of these and I'd probably support a merge proposal for a single article on gender marketing of games and toys. Chetsford (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on organization: Currently, Toy#Gender exists. I think there is probably scope on Wikipedia for gender in toy design or similar, to which these topics might reasonably be merged, where there is some amount of WP:RS coverage (in the articles or otherwise). I think presenting an article on boys and an article on girls probably does our reader a disservice. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. The articles are full of WP:SYNTH. The titles are problematic, and if an article on this topic is created it should be neutral, e.g. the suggested Gender in toy design._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep burned with fire is not policy nor even a guideline. Instead, our policy is that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I think about this, could the nominator say why, if merging in some form is an acceptable option, they are proposing deletion which precludes merging? Thincat (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, @Thincat:. I'm not actually sure that merging to, for example, Toy#Gender would help. I don't see anything here that is more informative than the material already there. This article is a mess, nobody seems to know what its about and I'm not sure that anybody is motivated to improve it, so it's just... there. Like a bad smell. Perhaps @Andrew Davidson: could explain exactly how long poor articles (such as this) are allowed to clutter up Wikipedia before they are unwelcome? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. That's because it is written by volunteers in their own time at their own pace per WP:CHOICE. Our output is therefore quite haphazard and 99% of our articles are not good yet but so it goes. What we do have is the policy WP:BITE which emphasizes that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". It is biting that is unwelcome. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly satisfies GNG and LISTN. Any other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the list? SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one. This seems like an Almost but not quite WP:TNT, and thus my inclination is to Merge them into Toys and gender, also pulling from Toy#Gender and in the process Drastically cut them down. There's a lot of problematic content here, but on a fundamental level there's a notable topic (between the two of them -- I definitely don't think we should have both articles) and some of the content seems usable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Toys and gender. None of the sources presented in the article are actually about toys for girls but rather either primary sources that violate WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:PROMO (particularly the beauty section) or are about toys and gender generally, such as the Tamagotchi article or the Guardian articles. It'll be a difficult merge, but I think the difficulty with this article comes from the fact the topic is generally notable, but this specific article on the topic is not. SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It would be silly to ruin children's toys by using gender segregation to split it into two articles and then to destroy those two articles. Either keep or merge. Hyacinth (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2018 (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.