Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudokube
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The result was Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sudokube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article cites no sources. A quick search brings up nothing except adverts from people selling it and a few blog entries. Ergo, non-notable. It also doesn't make very much sense, as some people have pointed out on the talk page, so there's nothing worth saving and merging into any other articles. Should also delete these redirects: Roxdoku, Sudoku cube, Sudoku kube and Sudocube GDallimore (Talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found a few mentions of it in major publications The Times, International Herald Tribune, Canton Repository. The last 2 are solely focused on the product and they have background on the creator of the cube, motivation, etc.. This article has production details. There should be enough to build some sort of an article. Bill (talk|contribs) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please help to improve the article, then. At the moment, it fails to establish notability of the topic so is still ripe for deletion. Also, from reading those sources, the article is currently named after a particular brand of Sudoku / Rubik's Cube combination - the "Sudokube" - whereas most of those sources are about the "Sudoku Cude" and give the "Sudokube" a passing mention at best, which isn't significant coverage. As it stands, therefore, this article still needs moving and a huge amount of re-writing based on the sources, or it should be deleted. GDallimore (Talk) 08:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article somewhat to include the sources. You're absolutely right about the branding issue. I suggest the page be moved over the redirect Sudoku cube, as this topic gets more coverage. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good from a quick look. NOMINATION WITHDRAWN! Can then sort out the moving issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GDallimore (talk • contribs)
- I've rewritten the article somewhat to include the sources. You're absolutely right about the branding issue. I suggest the page be moved over the redirect Sudoku cube, as this topic gets more coverage. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please help to improve the article, then. At the moment, it fails to establish notability of the topic so is still ripe for deletion. Also, from reading those sources, the article is currently named after a particular brand of Sudoku / Rubik's Cube combination - the "Sudokube" - whereas most of those sources are about the "Sudoku Cude" and give the "Sudokube" a passing mention at best, which isn't significant coverage. As it stands, therefore, this article still needs moving and a huge amount of re-writing based on the sources, or it should be deleted. GDallimore (Talk) 08:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bill.
SIS21:32, 29 September 2008 (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.