Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intel Play


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Intel Play

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure why this exists and seems to promote products Tsla1337 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tsla1337 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tsla1337 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge I think the article can be merged with Intel. I believe we can mention the collaboration - couple of sentences is enough. I wouldn't call it promotional even though there are some elements. Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Simply not a valid nomination reasoning. Also virtually any mention of this in Intel is possibly undue so I'm not in favour of the merge.  The concerns of promotion of 28 year old products is over the top ... the historical position is of more note.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Product line is dead, so unless you're promoting buying these toys on eBay, it doesn't meet WP:PROMO at all. One of the first attempts to market educational technology to kids.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that WP:PROMO is not a concern anymore, but I'm not sure how to establish the notability of a toy product discontinued since 2002. If a mention in Intel and/or Mattel is undue, I don't know if a stand-alone article is justified.

I'm not seeing much independent coverage. Doing a quick search I found these two, which are not great:

http://brandingsource.blogspot.com/2019/02/from-1999-intel-play-by-sapient.html http://www.cyto.purdue.edu/archive/flowcyt/isac2000/abstr5.htm

On the other hand, there is a great analysis on the QX3 done by Michael Davidson at the Florida State University. It is an extremely well done primer on this microscope which also serves as a microscopy tutorial.

https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/intelplay/index.html

Sorry, maybe that was a bit of a digression, my point is that I'm unsure about the applicable notability criteria for this case (I just started participating in AfDs recently). Alan Islas (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete As I mentioned in my comment above, I don't see the coverage in enough reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Alan Islas (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * keep per User:Mrschimpf. I see a number of sources like, , and which together do push this beyond the threshold. Product line is long dead so there should be no reason to think of promotionalism. SD0001 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2020 (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.