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. (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boyds Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Defunct company with zero reliable sources that are independent Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the fact that the company is defunct and no longer making these products has no relevance to notability or lack there of. I have removed the promotional material that was added to the page since my last visit and I have added a couple of independent sources. There are a multitude of books discussing these as collector's items and the state of the secondary market for them in various years. Most of the books were published independently of the company. I do not have access to those books at the moment, however I have left an example on the article talk page.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found significant coverage, especially in a search of Google Books. Worse case scenario this could be merged with Enesco but that page needs extensive cleanup. If merge is decided, I will gladly do it if someone pings me. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CNMall41 and ONUnicorn for finding those additional sources which I couldn’t - if you could add some of the independent sources into the article please I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to work on the page, but not as a way to keep the page from deletion. As AfD isn't cleanup, I think it would be best to either tag the page for cleanup or do the cleanup on your own. It's not really a topic that interests me but if the page is kept I can go and do some cleanup on it later on. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CNMall41 - I’m very happy to do this cleanup but as you’ve found some useful sources, maybe you could dump them in this - both so that they can be added in and so that other editors can use them to decide on their vote? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that people adding their opinions will do a search on their own WP:BEFORE they vote. Like I said, I will gladly revisit and do the cleanup if it is kept. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2020 (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.