Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zizzle


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Zizzle

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable toy company Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *Delete I'll change my mind when sourced facts are in the article. Just ask on my talk page. Miami33139 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for fixing it. Miami33139 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This company has a lot of mainstream coverage., , are three examples among many, many others. Poorly sourced article, but actually I think this could be expanded greatly. Angryapathy (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:N although relatively unknown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Two references were added already when I got here (NYTimes and Forbes) and I just added one to Business Week.  No question this is notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Four references have been added to the article: The New York Times, Forbes, BusinessWeek, and Time. All four of these articles have Zizzle as the topic. I believe this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that this company is notable. Angryapathy (talk) 16:02, 4 December 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.