Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain quest

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain quest

Was tagged with {{db-spam}} and I do not think this meets those criteria. I think with some expansion, the page will be good. I don't think this needs deletion. Cssiitcic (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do keep it. I think we should rename it Brain Quest, that is how it is supposed to be, according to both the website and the box.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just nonsense. Deb (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small portion was copied and pasted from the website. This was after the author had previously been warned for copyvio issues. All the work the editor has done here has been problematic and he / she has already been blocked within the first few days of activity. Brain quest is a product and may not have enough media coverage to source it. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "These Subjects support there learning throw there years at school." That's just precious. No sign that this fulfills any significant inclusion criteria besides its being written in English, kind of. I would have just CSD G11'ed it; the article's obvious purpose is to promote the game. --Dynaflow babble 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with all such nominations, I would have said, Cssiitcic, not to nominate articles for deletion that you don't yourself actually want to be deleted. But I'm guessing that you'll remember that point quite well, now. ☺
Note that your best arguments at this point are multiple in-depth sources covering the subject from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. You should be aware that none of the above editors have looked for sources. (Guess how I can know that simply from what they have written. ☺) So if you do look for sources, and are able to find and cite independent sources that document this subject in depth, you'll be able to make a convincing case that supports your nomination, and that wholly undermines E_dog95's deletion rationale, for one.
Hint: Editors who have looked for sources, and whose opinion on notability will be based upon actual data (rather than plucked out of thin air with no effort), will be able to state what happened with this product in 1994. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly because the nomination doesn't explain why it should be deleted. Secondly, because it has been covered in reliable sources establishing notability. There is this in-depth article about the product and the company. There is also this article and this article. I suspect that Uncle G was referring to the fact that it was a New York Times Bestseller for children's books in 1994. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bestseller, and a product recall all in the same year. Interesting. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the article can be improved. Do we really need to delete it?Cssiitcic (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it can be improved, and no, we don't really need to delete it as has been amply demonstrated above. So why nominate it for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I withdraw the AfD?Cssiitcic (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, unless the other people above who have suggested deletion agree to withdrawal. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I withdraw my !vote. (Rereading this AfD, I had a sudden a-ha moment: "Oh, those things!") My concerns with the article's quality are moot now that it's been demonstrated the article's subject can clear WP:N and WP:V. With the sources in the post by Whpq, it should be a simple matter to rewrite the article to at least marginally acceptable standards. --Dynaflow babble 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't withdraw at the moment because there is no context and I still don't know what the article's about from looking at the article. If independent sources exist, they should be listed in the article in place of the existing reference to a home site that is no more than an advert. Improve the article first. Deb (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AFD isn't cleanup. If the subject is notable, and verifiable, then it should be kept. the fact that it needs improvement can be handled through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've cleaned up the article and aded references. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There we are, you see - it wasn't that difficult, was it? I can withdraw my deletion vote now. Deb (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and Rename as "Brain Quest" with a capital "Q". I added the above sources to the article as a hidden comment (just until they get referenced in the article). ~SunDragon34 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (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.