Talk:Zorbeez

Textile Arts Low‑importance

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creating talk page edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, here it is. Now that admin PMDrive1061 has very kindly reinstated this stub, I hope editors more experienced than myself can aid in cleaning up and expanding this pathetic stub.

Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

New References edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have finally dredged up a few reliable (I think...) sources for this article. Oddly enough, the only ones other than blogs and stuff (which, by the way, seem to support the mixed results thing in the article) seem to be TV stations doing "Does It Work" shows. Okay to remove the reference tag? Oldlaptop321 (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up edit

No one has posted here, so I am going to go ahead and remove the tag. Feel free to challenge this action here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldlaptop321 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Article deletion edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A number of problems here: 1) It appears to include nothing more than an advertisement for a relatively Non-notable product. 2) The only sources are news websites that tested the product. These do not relate all of the information included here (i.e. Vertical Branding?), nor do they establish the notability of the item. 3) Very little has been added to this stub since another editor nominated for speedy deletion for the same problems over a month ago.

  Sorry, but this doesn't seem like something that should be on Wikipedia right now.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Contesting edit

I have contested the speedy fot the following reasons: D. 1) I do personally think it meets the CS 2) I think the sources are reliable (the Vertical Branding came from the Zorbeez website) 3) The stub is a work in progress, and more content will be added, it just needs more contributors.

Oldlaptop321 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The mere mention of a product in the media is not sufficient to establish notability. As a work in progress, you might consider doing more legwork offline and adding the article once there is enough information to substantiate the need for a whole article on the subject, i.e. notability.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added some more sources and content (it certainly could not be mistaken for an ad now)

and more sources should be forthcoming (about 31,400 hits on Google). :Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic