- 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. Lara❤Love 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- B.I.O. Bug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unreferenced article which does not assert notability, and reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia article -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first three paragraphs are taken directly from here Noble Story (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete seems a pretty non-notable toy. The article hasn't really been fixed since it was first created. per the above comment (which unfortunately isn't signed) it is also copyvio. Also the New York Times article that reports on sales figures is behind some kind of wall.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While some of their products - such as Robosapien and arguably the Dragonfly - may well be notable, this one was probably only notable in terms of the company's history and Mark Tilden's involvement. The NYT article is good, and discusses it in considerable length, but in essence the article is about why the toy was unsuccessful. - Bilby (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.