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. v/r - T P 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Chix[edit]

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

Declined proposed deletion. Was PRODed due to lack of reliabe sources. Some sources were added when the PROD was removed, but one is simply a product description and the other is an article that is about the profit margins of the company that made this toy which mentions the name of this product but offers absolutely no discussion of the actual subject of this article. Does not seem to have been a notable toy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing enough sources to satisfy WP:N. This book entry through google books: [1] Another more minor google books hit [2] There are also a lot of google news hits that together add up to substantial coverage, just some examples: [3][4][5][6] and the "just specs" source in the article also has a much more substantial review:[7] Siawase (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are out there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – I'm satisfied with the reliable sources out there to establish notability. –MuZemike 00:22, 11 July 2011 (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.