Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bif Bang Pow!
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 No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bif Bang Pow!
Article about a company with no obvious claim of notability. Likely to be spam, as related edits were made by User:65.91.28.130, which is an IP owned by Entertainment Earth, a retailer of the Bif Bang Pow!'s product. This edits occurred just a few minutes before the creator of the article created their account and the creator has edited the same articles [1]. TigerShark 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I prod'ed the article yesterday after the same observations, but later retracted the prod. While the sole editor's goal is clearly self-promotion, the article's been trimmed back to mostly factual stuff and it now does at least make an attempt to assert notability. I tried to engage the editor on his/her talk page but got no response, although he or she did appear to try to adhere to the requests I made (e.g. by not re-deleting the prod for example).
- Okay, so what's my point in all this? I think notability is borderline, but Seethelittlegoblin seems to be amenable to leaving out the promotional stuff, so I don't see this article as being overly spammy anymore. So I don't think this article really hurts Wikipedia per se (though it's debatable whether or not it helps).
- I don't really have an opinion either way on keep vs. delete. I just thought these comments might be useful to other editors in deciding which way to go. --Jaysweet 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thansk Jaysweet. I just wondered which parts of the article you feel possibly assert notability. All I can see is that they have created model for notable subjects, and they have shown them at a, probably, notable trade show. I wouldn't consider either of those to make the company or products notable themselves. Is there anything else? Cheers TigerShark 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The assertions of notability I saw were: the association with Alex Ross, who is notable; the final sentence of the article proper saying that the Big Lebowski figures were featured at a Comic Con; and the three 3rd party articles in the references section (from IGN, Film Junk, and Action Figure Insider).
- Now as to whether those assertions actually prove notability... I'm with you about the Comic Con, probably not. The 3rd party article, well, it's borderline. Action Figure Insider, probably not. IGN, well, I dunno, IGN is a pretty notable publication, but I'm not sure everything they cover is notable per se. I don't know anything about Film Junk.
- The association with Alex Ross I think might be the strongest argument they have going. There doesn't seem to be any debate on Wikipedia as to whether he is notable, and if this is what he is doing now, maybe that makes sense. Maybe a merge with Alex Ross then?
- Anyway, like I say, I'm definitely not voting keep. At best, this article is borderline. --Jaysweet 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thansk Jaysweet. I just wondered which parts of the article you feel possibly assert notability. All I can see is that they have created model for notable subjects, and they have shown them at a, probably, notable trade show. I wouldn't consider either of those to make the company or products notable themselves. Is there anything else? Cheers TigerShark 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about this, either. It needs better (and cited) sources, rather than just a bunch of links, some of which are a little bit marginal reliability-wise. There is some assertion of notability, granted, but not quite enough. I have to err slightly in favour of deletion but I can envisage this being kept or lacking consensus. Adrian M. H. 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - looks just about notable to me, but verification of the link with Alex Ross would be nice. At best, they're a very minor company until some of these toy lines are actually released. Terraxos 01:30, 6 July 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.
