- 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) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Freaky Flickers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable toy article being used as a coatrack for an off-wiki legal dispute. Brandon (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some discussion in blogs and sources of limited importance, but no real indication that these toys are notable. Fram (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - please look through the revision history for this page. It used to be a much higher quality article, but now it is no better than a CSD spam delete. With that in mind, even the best version of the article (see [1]) was, seems to me, sourced entirely from corporate promo. Well-written spam is still spam. Without third party sources and assertion of notability, this is a borderline speedy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2009 (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.