Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IZ (toy)


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IZ (toy)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non notable toy Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability requires multiple reliable sources. This article has one. If more sources appear, ask me to reconsider on my talk page. Miami33139 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)]
 * Keep. Notability is clear from looking at the first few of the 210 results from this Google News archive search. Whether this should be merged with Zizzle can be discussed on the article talk pages. I would add that this is the place to discuss whether more sources are available, not user talk pages. If you want to know how a discussion progresses then use your watchlist - how can we be expected to have a sensible discussion if every reply has to be copied to every previous participant's talk page, which would be the result if we all demanded the same privileges as Miami33139? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes closers can discount or ignore votes of people who don't bother to check back to see their sourcing concerns have been answered. To do otherwise is to delete articles on a technicality. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I encourage. I don't need it copied to my talk page, but a watchlist doesn't show every entry to a discussion. If someone adds sources to an article (which I probably didn't watchlist) then a note to my talk page is an invitation, not an expectation. I follow AfD comments more than most users, who comment and never return. Miami33139 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep There are so many articles in Google News by reliable publications that it's not even funny. The titles also indicate the articles are exclusively about the company or the toy in question, which should satisfy the people who believe coverage needs to be substantial. =- Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 11 December 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.