Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oozinator

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oozinator

Fails WP:CORP for products. I can find no coverage in neutral/reputable media, and the article is filled with original research speculating about the contents of the television commercial and an Internet meme. It's been around a while and has had plenty of time to improve, but there simply isn't anything out there to make this a quality article. I don't think any of the contents here even warrant a merge. Delete. Kafziel 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has a link to the official Hasbro page on the toy, and a link to the commercial, so they're not speculation. Perhaps some tone editing would help. NawlinWiki 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The company website and a commercial for the product are not independent sources. As I said, it's verifiable, but not notable. Kafziel 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This toy caused considerable controversy. There is no good reason to delete the article. Tim Long 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What controversy? Where? A blog and an AV Club spoof? Look, if anyone can show me some quality sources indicating some kind of notability, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. So far, I've seen no evidence. I've seen plenty of nonsense, but nothing to indicate that this was anything more than a blip on the most obscure of geek radars. Kafziel 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for insufficient verification regarding notability. Wryspy 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That thing is just HI-larious. -- GIR 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Funny, but not encyclopedically notable based on current references. If Hasbro gets called to a Congressional hearing on this issue, we can have a rethink on the article Bwithh 13:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Eh, Keep, or at least merge relevant content with Super Soaker – if nothing else, it could be added to the list of product models. Oddly enough, the Oozinator did receive some coverage in newspapers, based on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis searches. The Washington Post named it "[one] of the toys kids raved about" (June 12, 2006); the Florida Times-Union said the bio-oooze "looks like something that would come out of your nose" (May 29, 2006); the Arkansas Daily Gazette compared it to the monster from Alien (May 24, 2006); and it was even mentioned – albeit briefly – in a New Yorker article (July 24, 2006). There were additional results from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Star-Ledger, the Buffalo News, the Columbus Dispatch, the Modesto Bee, Newsweek, Business Wire, and Playthings (mostly included in "summer fun!" articles). None of these sources mention the semen thing, though. Zagalejo 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Skeet skeet. Wooty 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Super Soaker. Equendil Talk 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, the oozinator is not the subject of any of the articles that mention it, which WP:CORP requires. Those articles are about supersoakers in general. Pan Dan 23:48, 27 September 2006 (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.