Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComputerSmarts


 * 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The result was withdrawn, see rationale at Videosmarts 2 says you, says two  16:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ComputerSmarts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a notable product, unsourced, three different google searches turn up absolutely nothing. 2 says you, says two 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have preferred to discuss this with the Videosmarts AfD as I pointed out in that discussion (which I suspect led to this nomination). These devices need to prove notability and Videosmarts has a start. If sources can be found to associate the two products and satisfy WP:N, I'd recommend a merge. —Ost (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Week delete, prefer rescue. Rescue/Merge. Am I missing something or does VideoSmarts actually have nothing to do with ComputerSmarts except sounding similarly and presumably competing in market? Both articles have basically the same issues. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Restate. — Hellknowz  ▎talk 20:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the articles, they have a similar manufacturer. They also have very similar logos.  This is certainly not proof that they are related, but I suspect that they operated together or that one succeeded the other.  But admittedly without sources, I'm just speculating. —Ost (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with VideoSmarts or Rescue and Keep. There are fewer sources for this than there are for VideoSmarts, but Google Books still shows a few relevant hits. The products are pretty clearly related. Both manufactured by Connor, similar VHS-format system, nearly identical trade dress. No need to delete verifiable information if, like this topic, it passes the minimum requirement for notability. -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added the sources that I can for now, though i'm sure there are more. The problem is that the news sources clearly have information on the subject, but they're all past the Pay-per-view barrier. At the very least, the Tampa Bay Magazine has an entire article on the subject, so i've referenced that in the article. Silver  seren C 20:26, 26 April 2010 (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.