Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bungee ball (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎ . ✗plicit 05:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bungee ball

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bungee ball (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Article is largely unsourced claims. From the 2 sources provided in the article, I can only establish that 1) some mall kiosks sold "bungee balls" in high volume and 2) a particular brand called "Yo-yo water balls" were (strangely) flammable. I did a few quick Google searches for bungee balls and bungee ball toys, yielding only results for dog toys or tarpaulin tie downs. Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, simply no sources. Fad toys need really clear and reliable sources to prove they are an encyclopedic topic adn this one fails completely. // Timothy :: talk 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bouncy ball as the bungee ball product is probably not notable enough for an article, but there's already a collection of similar products building up under "Bouncy ball", and maybe the safety concerns make it an interesting historical relic. It's not accurate to say there are no sources for it when there's a newspaper article about the product cited in the article. An additional citation about a bungee ball product was deleted by the editor above me and has been restored. --Iritscen (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH - not all fads are notable, if they are local and within a certain following. If they are really notable, they can have an article like Pet rock. Not against a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2023 (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.