Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.B. Funkeys (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 by clear consensus and WP:HEY as passing WP:N and WP:RS. Bearian 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.B. Funkeys

U.B. Funkeys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is total spam, an advertisement for a product, written pretty much entirely by paid editors working for IntraPromote. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia_by_Intrapromote. The game is not very notable, with only one newspaper article mentioning it. It would be easier to start over if someone wants an article, than to remove all the WP:COI spam from this one. Dicklyon 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Despite the COI, it is sourced by a reliable venue (NY Times). - Rjd0060 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Can someone please explain to me why there is a conflict of intrest?--JRTyner 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
See that long link above, about conflict of interest and Intrapromote, the commercial spammers who wrote it, where you already responded that it's not you. Dicklyon 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I read the pages linked to this one and based my reason to keep on them. I added it to the end of the list. --JRTyner 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, this is apparently pegged as one of 2007's "hot holiday toys" and as such will probably just get created again. Notability outside of the NYT piece is marginal but the article is fixable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I studied the Wikipedia rules for deletion, and I came to this conclusion. The reason this article was put up for deletion is blatant advertising. Wikipedia defines blatant advertising as:
Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. "
  1. I do not see the U.B. Funkey page as a promotion for the toy. It makes no claims about the toy or sponsors it in any way. The page only expains the game and characters.
  2. There is information on the page that the company has not promoted. Mainly what colors the Funkeys come in, and how rare each color is. They won't tell you this because they would rather you find out after you use them. This is one of the selling features, so this proves that it's not being promoted, but is being presented in a non biased encyclopedic form.
  3. The page is set up as an encyclopedic entry. It details how the game is played. It has a biographic entry for each Funkey race. It is not selling anything.
For these reasons this article follows the Wikipedia standards and I believe it should not be deleted.--JRTyner 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep COI editing is not a reason to delete. I've edited out much of the advertising. There's a solid New York Times reference. Please watchlist this article and keep it clean. If any COI editors get snarky, let me know and I will talk with them. - Jehochman Talk 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You deleted consumer information that is next to immpossible for one person to collect. Please read my second reason above for keeping the article. There is no COI in the color tables because no one working for the company would want to give away what the rare colors are. I would also like to know why you delete two-thirds of the page, without even posting on the talk page. --JRTyner 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't meet [{WP:N]] (multiple independent sources) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless further non-trivial media coverage is quoted. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Even though I nominated it for deletion, it's now toned down to the point where it might be an acceptable article. I'd rather watch this one than risk another advertising version coming back. Only one independent source, but probably more can be found. Dicklyon 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This article can be resuscitated. Major concern is WP:NOR jonathon 08:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep New York Times article source, Mattel toy company ownership [1], Toys-R-Us and WalMart hits on Google, PC Magazine reference[2]. Notable and worthy. Could definitely use some clean up. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:50, 15 October 2007 (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.