Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chou Chou (doll)


 * 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 Zapf Creation.  Sandstein  06:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Chou Chou (doll)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not think that this doll is notable. There is nothing special about it, at least it can't be extracted from the information given in the article. Aditionally, the text is highly advertising. Reducing it to unbiased facts would only lead to a small line thast could be merged into Zapf Creation. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally unreferenced, spammy article that has little or no encyclopedic value. Regards, Javért  ☆ 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The spamminess can be dealt with through editting. The dolls are widely sold and was the top-selling toy fort he UK in July 2009.  Google news searh turns up lots of articles including, ,  just to mention a few. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong merge to Zapf Creation the parent company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep or merge with Zapf Creation. Notability established, maybe however better not to fragment. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong merge per above avs5221 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Added a citation for Duracell Top Ten claim. Other articles in business and general databases were either the same as the Easter and Bilingual articles linked by Whpq, or passing mentions on "hot this Christmas" lists in a few magazines. Zapf_Creation could be made into a better article, IMO, and all the non-spammy information could be retained. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.