Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatter Telephone

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. Icewedge (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chatter Telephone

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

Delete as there are no references and it is advertising a toy. ChaosControl1994 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does seem to be at least a somewhat notable toy--searching for references turns up many descriptions in reliable sources of the Chatter Telephone as a classic Fisher-Price product. Plus, the photograph of the 1960's chatter telephone is rather charming...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cordelianaismith. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Version

Please take a look at it again, I've added some references and text, and tried to make the tone neutral. I did try to dig up some dirt on this toy as I'm sure it has a sorid past--anyone with that kind of smile has something to hide. I've heard rumors of the Chatter Telephone drunk dialing old girlfriends--but a google news archive search didn't reveal any verifiable and reliable sources. I did find a photo of one drunk and grimacing in a bar with a cig in its mouth, but that's only available for non-commercial use, so I can't put it in the article. I'll keep looking tho. Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version has plenty of references to back up the claims of notability. Also, why is this AFD different than all others? There is no search thing appearing at the top. Dream Focus 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DumbBOT is a ninja. I did add the link to find sources, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an iconic toy and the current set of references establish notability. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nuujinn's work. The added references work to establish notability, though we will need to be mindful that no one adds any allegations of impropriety without sources, or else we might run afoul of our Biographies of Little Phones policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks better than it did on Friday. Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems acceptable at this point. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep classic toy. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite including notability asserted with sourcing. -- Banjeboi 13:47, 13 March 2010 (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.