Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videosmarts

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 see explanation after original deletion rationale. 2 says you, says two 16:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Videosmarts

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

I vaguely remember having this as a child, but I never saw it anywhere else. None of my friends had it, I never saw it in a toystore and it wasn't advertised on television, nothing like that. The closest thing I could find to a reliable, third party source was this.

The manufacturer, Conner Toys, is redlinked and google doesn't show anything on them. Although Amazon.com does have one of the tapes for sale in the marketplace, no matter how I try to spin it, I just can't see Videosmarts satisfying WP:N. 2 says you, says two 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling this AfD, along with the one for ComputerSmarts. I don't think there's enough significant coverage for it to stand on its own, but I'm starting to agree that if Videosmarts, Computersmarts, and music Videosmarts are merged into a single article under Conner Toys or Smarts series, the threshold for WP:N should be met. 2 says you, says two 16:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources. There seems to be at least enough information out there to satisfy notability requirements. Silver seren^C 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal hits in the Google news archive, and nothing on the parent company either. Seems pretty non-notable. AniMate 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue. If not, then Delete. It does have some marginal sources. That aside, none of them seem to point out any WP:N. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news hits on Google. General search provides links to video sites shows commercials/what it can do and places where you can buy it. I never heard of this till I seen the article up for deletion. If it was around for a year and a half to two years, then it must not have fared well in the video game market when you had to try and rival the Nintendo. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I've never heard of it" is an invalid reason to vote delete. -Thibbs (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thibbs, You obviously missed my reasoning in the first sentence. The second sentence was a general comment. I am sorry if that has to be pointed out to you. We are all old enough to know the difference. We are not children that need everything pointed out. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in bringing up your personal anecdotes then? I believe they are inappropriate arguments for an AfD. As for your suggestion that Google News doesn't cover the system, please examine the news links on the article page. Surely you'd concede that those are reliable sources, right? -Thibbs (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some reliable sources already exist at the article and I see at least two good sources under google books. References should be improved obviously. -Thibbs (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that WP:IDONTKNOWIT is a poor rationale for deletion, but my point was that the product was either very poorly marketed, or didn't do well because I can't remember Videosmarts being carried or advertised anywhere - and that fact is frequently an indicator of non-notability. While the sources given are reliable, they are all at best marginal mentions, and this doesn't satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. 2 says you, says two 02:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your personal experience with Videosmarts is not at issue here. It's an interesting piece of trivia about you but it has nothing to do with notability of Videosmarts. If it wasn't carried anywhere and if it wasn't advertised anywhere (both doubtful given the sources) then that may indicate non-notability but your personal memories indicate next to nothing. (NOTE: I apologize if I'm coming off as harsh. I'm just trying to be clear and precise.)
In regard to your concerns that ALL the references are trivial, I disagree. Both the Sun Sentinel article and the second Chicago Tribune article (both included in the article's External Links section) cover the Videosmarts system in detail. Of course the links only lead to abstracts, but that doesn't invalidate the coverage in the full article. -Thibbs (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that many of articles provided are in fact, abstracts. One article has absolutely nothing to do with Videosmarts (music videosmarts is a completely different product, by how its described). The remaining abstracts give a word count, which is frequently small enough to show that its coverage of videosmarts cannot be that in depth. 2 says you, says two 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Music VideoSmarts seems to be a sister-product produced by the same manufacturer. It appears that Connor produced a whole line of "XSmarts" educational toys. This lends support for Ost316's suggestion that a merger would be more appropriate than an outright deletion. As for the suggestion that news articles have to be a certain length to qualify as good sources, is this actually Wikipolicy? I agree that longer articles typically will cover topics in greater depth, but some of the articles cited in the VideoSmarts article approach 1000 words. Does this fall short of the threshold requirement for article length? Is there even such a threshold that must be met? -Thibbs (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this article isn't about Connor toys or the "____smarts" series. 2 says you, says two 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well "merge" is still a valid consideration in AfDs especially when multiple related articles are up for deletion. As Ost316 pointed out, the article on ComputerSmarts (another sister product) has recently been nominated for deletion and I also noticed that two of its sub-articles have been PRODed as well... A merge could perhaps save some of the information in these articles as well. I mean obviously nobody is interested in deletion just for the sake of deletion.
Anyway, even putting merger aside I don't think a vote for delete on the topic at hand (i.e. VideoSmarts) is justifiable solely on the grounds that one of its listed sources isn't on point and that the source articles are shorter in terms of word-count than would be ideal. We're talking about threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, not promotion to FA status. -Thibbs (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage is accepted to be somewhere between one and two sentences. Anything longer than that is considered, within reasonable bounds, to be significant coverage. Silver seren^C 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it looks like there is some coverage to show it's notable. Can this be merged with ComputerSmarts? They both have similar logos, as seen on this Amazon page. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article has also been nominated for AfD —Ost (talk) 19:24, 26 April 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.