Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oozinator (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oozinator
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article consists of nothing more than the technical specifications and the barely sourced controversy section. If anything, the important information can be retained at the Super Soaker page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it's still pretty notable, I mean the commercial itself is freaking hilarious this does need to be kept.--Jack Cox (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There's enough coverage here, although a merge to Super Soaker would not be inappropriate. Was that proposed and rejected, or are we here at AfD prematurely, again? Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's notable enough on its own and the page is so low traffic that a merge discussion would be fruitless.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go read WP:NNC and internalize it. Notability only applies to standalone articles.  Not to content, not to list elements, just to standalone articles. Notability is thus never a valid reason for deletion when a merger is plausible. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I thought that notability was one of the prime tenets for inclusion or exclusion on the English Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Badly written and/or sourced article isn't a valid cause for deletion. There's plenty of sources in magazines, newspapers, TV stations and on popular websites, such as The Consumerist. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2011 (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.