Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigamajig


 * 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. I am satisfied after a third relist that there is a consensus to delete here, particularly after one of the most thorough contributors to the debate returned to put their weight toward a delete. KaisaL (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rigamajig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG John from Idegon (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In analyzing Wikipedia's GNG I can attest to Rigamajig's legitimacy To help provide a higher quality Wikipedia Article, It would be helpful to understand the specifics as to why Rigamajig fails the GNGuidelines. Please respond with a rationale. Thank you, Caterooni (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage": There are multiple articles in the resources and external links that cover Rigamajig. Additional accolades include: [|Children's Museum], [| The Hot Potato], [|| Easton Children's Museum], [|Will Rogers Memorial Museum Children’s Museum]
 * "Reliable" and "Secondary Sources": Rigamajig's references includes primary (creator and official websites) in addition to secondary sources. More news articles that capture Rigamajig's functions can be located: [| Chattanoogan.com], [|Rhode Island Monthly], [|| Blue Ridge Now]
 * "Independent of the Source": As previously mentioned, facts of Rigamajig can also be found in secondary sources
 * "Presumed": The sheer number and dominance in the Google search for the keyword "Rigamajig" provides the safe assumption that Rigamajig is worth covering in Wikipedia's literature.
 * Hi, you might like to read Contributing to AfD discussions, which i have found very helpful (as is the rest of the article:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is a funny one, if Rigamajig was an artist or an artist's work(s) it would meet notability guidelines as it is 'held' by numerous museums, if a book, it is used/taught at numerous schools ditto if treated as an exhibit, which it sort of is, allbeit a hands-on-one ie. Rigamajig at Providence Children's Museum, York Academy Regional Charter School received $10,000 to purchase Rigamajig, Link, Lift, Launch: Rigamajig (at Mid-Hudson Children's Museum), and here are a couple of 'reviews' - in The Chattanoogan - "Rigamajig Building Kit Coming to Creative Discovery Museum - “We are excited to have Rigamajig added to the creative, inventing and building experiences within the newly-expanded Make It Space,” said Karen Dewhirst, Museum Experience Manager for Science and Exhibits.", from the Providence Children's Museum - "Rigamajig! We’ve seen kids tinker and build with Rigamajig with some wonderful results, including..". Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will relist this again as the wealth of research into this subject appears to have been from a user that did not make any clear indication of their views. Would you like to revisit this debate? KaisaL (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I'm noticing the listed links but examining them simply found nothing actually convincing, this company is also rather new so that's also saying something about the availability of the needed coverage, especially since the company is localized. SwisterTwister   talk  06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 [ talk ] 20:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both the sources brought forth by the article's creator and by seem to me to be based on press releases, rendering them not appropriate for showing notability. My opinion on that is certainly subject to debate, but there seems a considerable similarity in all of them.  Comments? John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, on reflection, i should have said "probably notable", i would have been happy with this being redirected with a sentence or two to an appropriate article like 'Large construction toys', unfortunately there isn't one, i agree with, that some of the sources can be seen as promotional, so may not be useable. Although this looks like a great educational product, it does not quite meet WP:GNG, and so should be Delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete To be fair, there are a few references which show that this "educational toy" is being used in certain places. But I haven't found the indepth sources required for keeping the article. Stuff like toys actually take a long time to become notable - this usually happens when some scholarly works reference the toy. This seems like a WP:TOOSOON to me at this moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on the Blue Ridge Now and Rogers Museum sources - which, I note, are not on the article page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2016 (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.