Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WowWee


 * 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. John254 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WowWee

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

Unreferenced article that would need some serious work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards - it currently reads more like an advert. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep article definitely needs work and some of it reads like an advertisement (particularly recent stuff about the buyout) but, it does seem to meet notability requirements and is covered alot on what seem to be tech and business sites. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable company that certainly merits an article on Wikipedia - it has been heavily covered in the press and other reliable sources. Admittedly, the article needs a lot of work, but AfD isn't for cleanup. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if there are so many reliable sources about this allegedly notable company, why has the article not had a single reference added in the four years that it has existed? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - you're right, it should have been fixed. In fact, I'd been looking for that article before, and was disappointed by how little was there. Sorry for being a bit short. I'll see if I can improve the article tonight by adding some references and stuff, and hopefully that will help. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've rewritten the article to remove copyvio (which there was a lot of) and to add references in order to establish notability. It is just a start, but it is the best I can do tonight, and I hope that it is, at least, a well referenced start. :) The best of the sources available online was one of the NYT articles. - Bilby (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 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.