Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoCube

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeoCube

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

A non-notable toy made of a bunch of magnetic balls. While it looks kind of neat, the article has severe issues with spaminess (includes a handy pricing section) and appears to fall under the Wikipedia is not for things you just invented rule. Also, there's no real demonstration of notability (youtube and a brief mention on gizmodo don't count in my opinion), nor could I find any reliable sources via google. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not spam. Look at my references, many reliable sources have written about the NeoCube...such as WPVI-TV and the Pitt News a college newspaper or something. I worked pretty hard on it and the Pricing section I added in to show the cents per sphere. Keep XRDoDRX (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. A non-notable toy. Crafty (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is notable, actually, and as I have demonstrated reliable, third party news sources verify almost every part of the article except the section on Knock-offs, which I am trying my best to address. XRDoDRX (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I see lots of links to YouTube. A deadlink to pittnews, an abc local affiliate, a blog and a German site. You need to show significant coverage in second and/or third party reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link wasn't always dead. However the more you guys find fault w/the article, the less able I seem to be to fix it. I think ibrought unnecessary attention to it by requesting assisstance. :( XRDoDRX (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the English version goes, what about the French and Russian versions? XRDoDRX (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter for the French and Russian Wikipedias. Fortunately we only have to worry about the English Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the multiple independent sources writing about this. The Pitt News 404 is not relevant as student press isn't usually conidered strong enough to establish notability, so this leaves a local affiliate station's piece. Not sufficicent to clear the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 15 October 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.