Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badanamu: Learn and Play

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Badanamu: Learn and Play

Badanamu: Learn and Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Badanamu does not appear to be a television program, but rather a company that produces educational materials (games, videos, etc., see their website). The company does not appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

KEEP. Correct, it's not a TV program. I disagree about its notability, though. I have a toddler, and we were introduced to their material at her preschool. It does appear to be fairly well known about, and their videos have millions of views on YouTube. That said, the article itself is a poor one. I think it should be kept and improved, though, not deleted. Lukobe (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Lukobe: Your KEEP argument amounts to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Your assertion that "it appears to be fairly well known about" is not supported by the availability of any reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- spam; incoherently written; does not cite any RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per K.e.coffman's comments. The keep vote does not provide adequate enough reasons for the article to stay, and I agree with WikiDan61 in that it falls more into WP:ILIKEIT than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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.