Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picoo Z

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. Per the references provided. A discussion to merge this article into an article on the company (should such an article be created) can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picoo Z

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

PROD removed without explanation by an IP. The reason for the prodding stands: this is a non-notable model aircraft that utterly fails the WP:GNG. The only claim to notability is that on release some sold for $150, but that's not enough to merit inclusion as a full article here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a toy it doesnt seem particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this based upon a search for sources and WP:N, or is it your personal opinion? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a claim in an earlier version of it being the smallest in class acto Guiness; don't know why this was lost. No opinion as to whether this would constitute sufficient notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nomination is utter nonsense. This product has MASSIVE notability and absolutely deserves an article. Belchfire-TALK 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Those are intriguing, but, except for the nano sculpture, are any of those anything more than "Christmas is coming, here's a gift idea" articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how the first article in my !vote above goes into significant detail about the product itself, rather than being simply a "gift idea" article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: See WP:Product if company is notable, merge, otherwise WP:FAILN would apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 August 2012‎
Keep Normally I would vote to redirect this to Silverlit Toys, but since that article has yet to be created, it will have to be kept, along with I-Cybie. The Steve 06:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRODUCT via article and above sources, plus [1][2]. -- Trevj (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2012 (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.