Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PET Aliens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 due to insufficient reliable references.-Wafulz 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PET Aliens[edit]
I know for a fact that the content of this article is true, but it is impossible to verify. Negligible Google hits relevant to the subject, as there are other things that share the same name. Manufactured by this company but as a corporate website it only features products which are currently being sold, not this phased out brand of figurines.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did find one single source.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that two sources now, but they are probably not WP:RS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that there are other articles that link to Vivid Imaginations, a merger into that article might be a good idea if someone more knowledgeable about the subject wants to create it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now three sources. Definitely a real thing, but notability is borderline.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that there are other articles that link to Vivid Imaginations, a merger into that article might be a good idea if someone more knowledgeable about the subject wants to create it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that two sources now, but they are probably not WP:RS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Those are some lame references. Only a staunch inclusionist would want to keep an article about a trivial toy from the depths of childhood. YechielMan 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, they are lame, but no better sources are known to exist. I wouldn't know how to gauge the notability for this category of article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep label me a staunch inclusionist if you must, but I figure somebody might come here looking for info about toys remembered from childhood. I'd search for the toys from my (1960s) childhood, if I could remember what any of them were called. Capmango 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like more feedback for this AFD, but looking at the pictures of P.E.T. Aliens again, it's amazing how much they seem to resemble Pokemon.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. -- Steve Hart 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I remember these from my childhood (mid 1990s), and while they are nostalgic, ultimately there aren't enough references online to establish any kind of notability. I'm surprised this AFD hasn't been closed yet.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:27, 29 June 2007 (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.