Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComputerSmarts (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerSmarts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a couple of hits for this behind from 1987 that are behind newspaper paywalls. Best I can tell from the free access though, the most any of those are saying is that its an expensive educational Christmas gift, a generic statment made about dozens of items every year, and one that does not establish notability. As such, this fails the notability guideline. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources that were apparently overlooked include this and this. It also should be understood that, since the product is from 1987, it is highly likely that most sources cannot be found online. Silverseren^C 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't "overlook" them, I discounted them. The second one has absolutely no context, just the name of the product. The first one is a glorified advertisement, and that coverage reaches the point of "there is proof that this item exists" but not the point of "this is notable". That a website, even a newspaper or magazine, mentions a product is not enough to establish notability. The sources themselves need to indicate the notability. There isn't any here, as far as I can tell. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be noticeable, nor does it seem to have had a lasting effect, unlike Tickle Me Elmo. [The first link above appears to be a passing mention when discussing the company, and the second one may not be a reliable source; aren't sections like that usually paid for by the companies? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with VideoSmarts, the sources smell of press-kits, and it seems we are beyond the suggestion of merging everything to Connor Toy Corporation. Marasmusine (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2011 (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.