Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrofits of Chuck E. Cheese animatronics


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  14:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrofits of Chuck E. Cheese animatronics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A WP:OR grouping of mainly unreliable sources (Youtube, the "Retro Pizza Zone" on tapatalk, a Google Drive spreadsheet(!)) and primary sources (showbizzpizza.com). No evidence that these retrofits are actually a notable topic. Fram (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business,  and United States of America. Fram (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources found for this retrofit article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not seem notable Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd like to acknowledge that this is an interesting read but the sourcing is not up to par. You play to win the game (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Smerge to Chuck E. Cheese; there is a section that discusses its storied animatronics that could accommodate a few lines on retrofits. BD2412  T 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the state of the sourcing, there isn't anything worth merging though. Fram (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting concept but fails WP:GNG. To the creator I encourage you to post in this discussion if you can identify an article, video, or other source where an expert, journalist, or research talks about this concept in general. The sources here seem to be comments on instances of retrofits, but Wikipedia needs to identify at least two sources which are talking about this concept in general. A good entry into this review would be you presenting the best 2-4 sources you identify. The bar for inclusion is WP:42.   Bluerasberry   (talk)  17:30, 13 December 2022 (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.