Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/U.B. Funkeys (2nd nomination) - Knowledge

Source 📝

267:
There is information on the page that the company has not promoted. Mainly what colors the Funkeys come in, and how rare each color is. They won't tell you this because they would rather you find out after you use them. This is one of the selling features, so this proves that it's not being promoted,
300:
You deleted consumer information that is next to immpossible for one person to collect. Please read my second reason above for keeping the article. There is no COI in the color tables because no one working for the company would want to give away what the rare colors are. I would also like to know
348:- Even though I nominated it for deletion, it's now toned down to the point where it might be an acceptable article. I'd rather watch this one than risk another advertising version coming back. Only one independent source, but probably more can be found. 258:
Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.
290:
COI editing is not a reason to delete. I've edited out much of the advertising. There's a solid New York Times reference. Please watchlist this article and keep it clean. If any COI editors get snarky, let me know and I will talk with them. -
321: 235:, this is apparently pegged as one of 2007's "hot holiday toys" and as such will probably just get created again. Notability outside of the NYT piece is marginal but the article is fixable. -- 253:
I studied the Knowledge rules for deletion, and I came to this conclusion. The reason this article was put up for deletion is blatant advertising. Knowledge defines blatant advertising as:
122: 264:
I do not see the U.B. Funkey page as a promotion for the toy. It makes no claims about the toy or sponsors it in any way. The page only expains the game and characters.
153: 133:. The game is not very notable, with only one newspaper article mentioning it. It would be easier to start over if someone wants an article, than to remove all the 206:
See that long link above, about conflict of interest and Intrapromote, the commercial spammers who wrote it, where you already responded that it's not you.
271:
The page is set up as an encyclopedic entry. It details how the game is played. It has a biographic entry for each Funkey race. It is not selling anything.
130: 318: 129:
This article is total spam, an advertisement for a product, written pretty much entirely by paid editors working for IntraPromote. See
215:
Thank you for your help. I read the pages linked to this one and based my reason to keep on them. I added it to the end of the list. --
154:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/technology/23funkey.html?_r=1&ex=1186632000&en=9c7d14727b42a560&ei=5070&oref=slogin
95: 90: 394: 369: 352: 338: 305: 295: 280: 243: 219: 210: 193: 184: 170: 141: 99: 64: 17: 150:: Dick, as much as I dislike articles written with a COI, I think the New York Times article makes this one clearly notable: 82: 409: 36: 408:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
389: 276:
For these reasons this article follows the Knowledge standards and I believe it should not be deleted.--
302: 277: 216: 190: 131:
Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia_by_Intrapromote
366: 240: 86: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
378: 384: 334: 167: 292: 381: 363: 349: 236: 207: 138: 134: 49: 181: 78: 70: 61: 57: 116: 330: 301:
why you delete two-thirds of the page, without even posting on the talk page. --
53: 164: 189:
Can someone please explain to me why there is a conflict of intrest?--
180:: Despite the COI, it is sourced by a reliable venue (NY Times). - 402:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
383:. Notable and worthy. Could definitely use some clean up. -- 380:, Toys-R-Us and WalMart hits on Google, PC Magazine reference 377:
New York Times article source, Mattel toy company ownership
268:
but is being presented in a non biased encyclopedic form.
112: 108: 104: 329:
unless further non-trivial media coverage is quoted.
362:This article can be resuscitated. Major concern is 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 412:). No further edits should be made to this page. 317:- Doesn't meet ] (multiple independent sources) 8: 7: 24: 319:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 395:15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 370:08:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 353:17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 339:17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 322:16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 306:06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 296:03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 281:01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 244:00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 220:01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 211:22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 194:22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 185:21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 171:21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 142:21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 65:23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 429: 405:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 48:by clear consensus and 137:spam from this one. 420: 407: 392: 387: 169: 120: 102: 34: 428: 427: 423: 422: 421: 419: 418: 417: 416: 410:deletion review 403: 390: 385: 163: 93: 77: 74: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 426: 424: 415: 414: 398: 397: 372: 356: 355: 342: 341: 324: 311: 310: 309: 308: 284: 283: 273: 272: 269: 265: 261: 260: 255: 254: 247: 246: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 199: 198: 197: 196: 174: 173: 159: 158: 157: 156: 127: 126: 73: 68: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 425: 413: 411: 406: 400: 399: 396: 393: 388: 382: 379: 376: 373: 371: 368: 365: 361: 358: 357: 354: 351: 347: 344: 343: 340: 336: 332: 328: 325: 323: 320: 316: 313: 312: 307: 304: 299: 298: 297: 294: 289: 286: 285: 282: 279: 275: 274: 270: 266: 263: 262: 257: 256: 252: 249: 248: 245: 242: 238: 234: 231: 230: 221: 218: 214: 213: 212: 209: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 195: 192: 188: 187: 186: 183: 179: 176: 175: 172: 168: 166: 161: 160: 155: 152: 151: 149: 146: 145: 144: 143: 140: 136: 132: 124: 118: 114: 110: 106: 101: 97: 92: 88: 84: 80: 76: 75: 72: 69: 67: 66: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 404: 401: 374: 359: 345: 326: 314: 287: 250: 232: 177: 147: 128: 79:U.B. Funkeys 71:U.B. Funkeys 45: 43: 31: 28: 52:as passing 360:Weak Keep 346:Weak keep 293:Jehochman 288:Weak keep 233:Weak keep 178:Weak keep 367:jonathon 350:Dicklyon 237:Dhartung 208:Dicklyon 139:Dicklyon 123:View log 386:ALLSTAR 303:JRTyner 278:JRTyner 217:JRTyner 191:JRTyner 182:Rjd0060 96:protect 91:history 62:Bearian 364:WP:NOR 331:Stifle 327:Delete 315:Delete 135:WP:COI 100:delete 50:WP:HEY 165:A. B. 117:views 109:watch 105:links 58:WP:RS 16:< 391:ECHO 375:Keep 335:talk 251:Keep 241:Talk 148:Keep 113:logs 87:talk 83:edit 56:and 54:WP:N 46:keep 121:– ( 337:) 239:| 162:-- 115:| 111:| 107:| 103:| 98:| 94:| 89:| 85:| 60:. 333:( 259:" 125:) 119:) 81:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
deletion review
WP:HEY
WP:N
WP:RS
Bearian
23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
U.B. Funkeys
U.B. Funkeys
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia_by_Intrapromote
WP:COI
Dicklyon
21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/technology/23funkey.html?_r=1&ex=1186632000&en=9c7d14727b42a560&ei=5070&oref=slogin
A. B.

21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Rjd0060
21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
JRTyner

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.