Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toonix

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. This title could conceivably be recreated as a redirect to Cartoon Network if-and-only-if Toonix is mentioned there in the future. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toonix

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

I had PRODed this article before an uninvolved user reverted me, saying that the article should be restructured to focus on the mobile game of the same name. Certainly, as long as it focuses on a non-existent television series, the article shouldn't exist. I don't know what miniseries this IMDb page refers to, but it definitely doesn't align with the plot summary and episode list this article gives. In addition, the article creator had a previous television series article deleted on grounds that it was a hoax. 23W 19:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm the editor who contested the PROD. I'm not sure why 23W doubts that the IMDB page is about the same series, but both are listed as having premiered in 2013, and the IMDb page links to Cartoon Network. Admittedly, the IMDB page also suggests that the series is ongoing, and that it was produced in Hong Kong, neither of which would line up with what is stated in this article. But the series clearly exists, as evidenced by its presence on YouTube [1]. I think part of the issue, is that this "show" isn't actually so much of a "show" as it is a bumper. But the show, bumper, brand, or however you want to term it, does exist and can be sourced. I've already added several refs to the External Links section. I have no objection to merging this into another article, if anyone has any ideas. But deletion isn't the way to go. --Jpcase (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting the value of the IMDb page or the references to the Toonix mobile game. But nothing about the body of this article lines up with those sources. Its contents were invented here, and no secondary source that I could find mentions any of the stuff in the article. If someone wants to create an article about the mobile game that's fine, but let's nuke this turd first. (Jpcase) 23W 21:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough point. Still, I generally only support deletion of an article when WP:GNG can't be met, and so I stand by my vote. The brand exists; the brand is notable. The game exists; the game is notable. The "show" (or whatever we want to call it) exists, although admittedly, none of the English language sources seem to mention it - no idea about the Spanish language sources. I haven't been able to find anything at all to support the episode list, so yes, you might be right about those titles being part of a hoax. I've gone ahead and removed all of the information pertaining to the TV show, and replaced it with three simple, sourced sentences. It makes for an incredibly short stub, but even just working with the three English language sources, a more interested editor could expand it a fair bit - to say nothing of what a Spanish-fluent editor could do. My view is that we let the stub stick around, that way such an editor will have an easier time getting involved. --Jpcase (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either way. The entire article is based on a Cartoon Network image campaign about 98% of the general public didn't care about outside of telling them what was next on the channel. Many kids probably played the mobile game but have long moved on after the image campaign ended. Be it a game or on TV, this only served one purpose; filling time before the next show/commercial/game started, and it's completely ill-sourced and only of interest to kid's network crufters. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm finding a few links but still nothing convincing of its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: There are three English language sources and four Spanish language sources included in the article, and a multitude of other sources (just do a Google News search) that I didn't even bother to add, for fear of overwhelming the External Links section - why don't you feel that these are enough to display notability? --Jpcase (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (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.