Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Bradley Playmate

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Bradley Playmate[edit]

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

This has been taggeded as a hoax, and that seems very likely; but even if it was real it fails WP:Verifiability. Searching finds a number of references, but they are all Wikipedia mirrors or obviously based on this article, or in some cases use the word "Playmate" as a description of other Milton-Bradley toys. There is no independent confirmation of what this article says. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good argument for the Wikimedia Foundation to raise the minimum requirements for creating an article. Nothing in Google books or Google newspapers. Fails WP:V, even if the alleged picture is found. Unscintillating (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the WMF has to do with it, that should be decided by local wikipedia consensus (their editors are going to be the ones dealing with the deletion and verification anyway). Also, this article was added over six years ago. I get the impression that back then the recent changes patrol wasn't quite as thorough. I'm not sure something like this with absolutely no references or indication of notability would last very long if it were added today, especially if it was added by a new or relatively new user (new user edits are more likely to be scrutinized).0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, there was an attempt by the English Wikipedia to raise the minimum requirements about three years ago. The programmers said that it would take them one hour to implement the requested change. The WMF blocked. I can't remember the name of the RfC at the moment. User:Scottywong was closely involved. Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was WP:ACTRIAL, a proposal to limit article creation to autoconfirmed accounts. While it would have been effective in cutting out many of the silly/vandalistic new articles we get, it would only have delayed this guy, I doubt it would have stopped him. He knew what he was doing, and would only have had to wait four days and make a few trivial edits. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax The article seems highly implausible on multiple grounds. Computer chess and checkers programs were in their infancy by the late 1960s, so this part is not totally inconceivable, but it's hard to imagine a 1960s-era computer being programmed to play a highly complex strategy game like Stratego with any skill. Battleship wasn't even produced by Milton Bradley until 1967, so the claim that the supposed inventor worked on the prototype for a long time before releasing it in 1968 seems unlikely. Milton Bradley did not produce Connect Four until 1974, leaving very little time to program the device before Cartwright's funding was allegedly withdrawn in 1975. Battleship, Candy Land, and Mouse Trap are all board games with small parts, ill-suited to a 600-cubic-foot computer with a giant robotic claw arm. It seems doubtful that Milton Bradley ever would have committed significant time and money to a project with an excessively high cost, size, and engineering complexity to be viable in the consumer market. Most significant, Mouse Trap was not made by Milton Bradley in the 1960s and 1970s. It was first manufactured by Ideal Toy Company, and several online sources indicate that Milton Bradley did not acquire the rights to Mouse Trap until Ideal's demise in the 1980s. All of this seems to point to a hoax.

In any case, however, this file has been around for 6 years and 6 months, so it should probably be included in Wikipedia: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.66.177.64.39 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this existed at all. I've searched around a bit. I considered sending an e-mail to Hasbro to see if they have anything on this, but honestly, given that there are absolutely no references to it anywhere, I doubt it would meet notability requirements even if it did exist. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually plausible, and may not be a hoax. I suspect the technology may have been available at the time, the Soviets had a robot on the Moon in 1970. However despite a search, this article fails WP:Verifiability, and so cannot be on wikipedia. Martin451 17:31, 4 August 2014 (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.