Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Bucket


 * 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 Keep and cleanup. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bucket

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't know about this one. Half the article seems like it was copied directly out of the instruction manual. The rest appears to be original research. Beyond issues of verifiability and that the article lacks any valid secondary sources, I'm not even sure this product is really notable. At the very least, this needs a complete rewrite. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources. Although I do remember the jingle! Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. After ghits and careful concideration and drunken mediatation I feel its at least semi notable enough (even though it was discontinued at one point). It just needs a little cleanup to rid it of the advert-ness. I'm sure sources can be found. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (eponysterical!) *Weak delete, obviously something that could have reliable sources but just doesn't have them online being from the pre-internet era. Nothing usable in Google News/Books. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, article needs almost a complete rewrite, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep - The article is horrible, but it can be improved. It appears there is some controversy over the toy, so it appears notable enough.  The cleanup tags represent it properly.  I cite DELETE: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." KV(Talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (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.