Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marbleworks

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 merge to Discovery Toys. At this point, the article does not demonstrate notability for products with reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marbleworks[edit]

Full disclosure, yes I just gutted the article but that was for copyvio, PR, OR, etc. issues. Nothing that affected notability. I don't find any evidence that this toy is notable. RS coverage is limited to the company talking about it, as well as company contractors saying how wonderful it is. Yes the company is a blue link but it's a sub-stub and I'm not entirely sure there's anything here worth merging. Thoughts? TravellingCari 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Discovery Toys. Redirects are cheap. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You think that article is going to stay? I'm nto finding too many independent reliable sources that shows that passes WP:CORP TravellingCari 15:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Wow, I had this when I was young. I see a few mentions in [1], which shows that it's at least somewhat known. [2] probably has enough for a separate article. --NE2 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re: the news sources, read them? I did and they're almost entirely name drops and them promoting themselves as a wonderful toy. I didn't find anything that passed multiple reliable sources. I don't think somewhat known is notable. TravellingCari 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that it's mentioned in these places means that someone might want to look up what it is. That's what an encyclopedia is for. --NE2 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I disagree, I don't think it's our scope of work to cover everything that's mentioned anywhere. But we're entitled to disagree and we'll see what happens. TravellingCari 00:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect without reference to notability. Parent article, Discovery Toys, is just a shell and though notable, probably won't generate much of an article beyond a brief summary and list of toy products. With the copyvios removed (nice catch!) there's not much to the marbleworks article. I suspect both are notable and a fully sourced article could be written about each with enough work, but unless someone's going to do that I think the information is better presented in a single article for all the major Discovery Toys products. I see nothing wrong with an article about a notable toy, and nothing wrong with spinning the article back out if and when it ever has enough material to stand on its own - it's just not ready yet. Wikidemo (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: An individual toy is rarely complex enough, culturally, to need discussion. Oh, there are Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs and the like, but, honestly, the toy line is worthy, but not really an isolated toy. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Marbleworks is a toy linee, just like the examples you cited. My kids have several sets. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Although I believe this would pass WP:N if someone did the work, it is probably better to merge with Discovery Toys until such a time it can be spun off onto its own. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2008 (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.