Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurglin Gutz


 * 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 redirect to Jimmy DiResta.  Sandstein  08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gurglin Gutz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prodded with "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Prod removed w/out ratinale. I am not seeing any reliable discussion out there, few mentions in passing, the best is this short passage from the toy creator:. This is a bit longer but of dubious reliability. Non-notable toy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It's easy to find coverage in the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns, &c. Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Chicago Tribune is a short paragraph of tongue-in-cheek advertising. NYT is not even coverage, it's a passing mention in a single sentence. Ditto for the cited Encyclopedia. WP:GOOGLEHITS are not anywhere close to what GNG requires, which in in-depth (non-trivial) coverage - and what you found is trivial (for CT) and then not even coverage for the two other examples... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine. The NYT, for example, provides good background about the inventor and the toy line's origin as a found object.  The encyclopedia has an entry for the topic and so is clear evidence that the topic is encyclopedic.  The contrary gurgling is not persuasive.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , From what I see the encyclopedia doesn't have any entry on this. Which page are you looking at? Please quote the few key sentences. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Current sources passes WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Pray tell in more details which ones. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock. MER-C 12:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jimmy DiResta, where it is already mentioned in the lead as one of his inventions. That is about all that the found sources could possibly support at this point - the NYT blurb and Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns cited above basically can not even count as coverage for this product due to how little they are actually mentioned in them.  Searching for further sources turns up basically nothing in reliable sources that gives more than a passing mention of the product that does nothing but establishes that it existed.  Even the creators own book barely talks about it.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jimmy DiResta. Zero sources with more than a brief mention/marketing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:52, 7 February 2021 (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.