- 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. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: to preserve relevant edit histories, a history un-merge was done during this AfD. This AfD is about the article now found at Tegu (toy company). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tegu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article coopted a redirect to the lizard genus Tupinambis and was deleted out-of-process by restoring the redirect over it. My reading of the sources is that this may be sufficiently notable, so I'm putting it through the process for confirmation one way or the other. Consider this a procedural nomination for now; I may add a !vote later. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, there are two issues here. One is whether this toy company is notable enough for its own page. Another is where it goes. If the toy company is not considered notable, the page should be returned to its former state - redirecting users from the common name of a taxon to the scientific name of the taxon. If the toy company is considered notable, its page should be moved to "Tegu Toys" or "Tegu_(company)" or somesuch, and the current page could become a disambig page linking to the toy company and the reptile. The key point is that users searching for the reptile should be able to find the page on that reptile easily, not be directed to some minor company with no links to the much more common and valid use of the term. HCA (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that googling for "lizard" produces 2.5 times the hits of googling for the "toy". Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article, contents not properly cited, alleged sources (a mere list of links) appear to be mostly just informal customer reviews, with little or no serious coverage of the company as such in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, so far there seems to be a dearth of support for keeping it as the toy company. How long should we let this continue before returning it to the lizard redirect? There certainly don't seem to be many opinions on the matter. HCA (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. If you're eager to have your lizards back, I could go IAR and history-unmerge the two topics. Let's put the toys aside while we let the lizards move back in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The lizard is a definite Keep, of course; the toy company less clear. HERE is a piece from Slate.com dealing with what would seem to be their main product, magnetic wooden blocks. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- THIS BLOG POST might be helpful if someone wants to write this up into a better form, although it won't probably count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotta get ready for work now, but I suspect sourcing towards GNG may well be in Spanish. This is the company name: Manufactura Tegu S.A. de C.V. and THIS is company-published but does add more material towards verifiability if anyone gets fired up to improve this. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- THIS BLOG POST might be helpful if someone wants to write this up into a better form, although it won't probably count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Playing a hunch here, but I suspect sources are out there for the toy company. TV time limit for now, I hope to revisit this later. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2013 (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.