Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spazzles


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Spazzles

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a disambiguation page, but with no valid entries – Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a directory. snigbrook (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. The hat accessory might stand a chance of passing WP:CORP - see  this reference, for example (not that I know what a "glick" is - we don't have an article, but it's presumably something similar).  They're also well-represented in on-line advertizing (not a guarantee of notability, of course).  I would give the article some time to develop before deleting it - on the assumption it's going to be about the hat accessory, of course. Tevildo (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do I smell a newt? Tevildo (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it – the same user also created an apparently autobiographical page (now deleted); there is also the fact that the dictionary definition was included in the page – WP:NEWT participants often create poorly written pages, but the content they create is encyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and is (usually) able to meet the relevant notability guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've expanded the article to include some information about the company - however, I'm not altering my opinion at the moment.  Tevildo (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Apparently the author had quite a coi in this matter: . Google hits for the company are fairly low too, no significant non-promotional entries out of only about 700 hits for "spazzles hat" at all. De728631 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A good point. "Catspaw" seems remarkably appropriate at the moment. :)  However, I'll leave my opinion at Neutral, such a level of cunning deserves a fighting chance. Tevildo (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible hoax, or at the least, cheap advertising Alan  -  talk  05:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Insufficient sources to show notability of the product. No prejudice against recreation if the product later becomes notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2009 (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.