20Q: The article currently only contains unreliable and/or non-independent references.  When researching this topic I could not find any sufficiently reliable or independent references to improve the article with.  I would recommend redirecting to 20Q (game show) , but that article may very well have the same problem (I have not looked into it).  Mokadoshi ( talk ) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 13 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nice, I remember this toy.  I'll take a look at what sourcing is out there before chiming in on the deletion discussion, but agree a merge is sound if the article lacks notability.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 20Q was originally a web site (still up at 20q.net) , which gathered answer weights / data then spawned a toy and was arguably the first commercial application of neural networks for consumer toys.  I'd say it's rather notable.  The patent is now abandoned: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060230008 and the design is interesting as LLMs and generative pre-trained transformers have gained popularity.  Nutate ( talk ) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any reliable, independent sources we could add to the article to establish notability?  The 20Q website is not independent.  Mokadoshi ( talk ) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mokadoshi : Here's one from Boing Boing and here's one from the NYTimes !  Edit: Oooohhhh, Chicago Tribune !! !  Americanfreedom ( talk ) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Americanfreedom : Thanks for finding those.  I don't know about Boing Boing, but the NY Times and Chicago Tribune references you found are definitely reliable.  It's a shame that each only have a couple sentences of useful information for the article because it means we'll likely never expand this article past a stub.  But is that a problem?  Mokadoshi ( talk ) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright lil' miss "I'm gonna complain until someone performs the WP:BEFORE I should've done", there's also the Washington Post (paywall), it's like you don't know about the search engine or something.  It's a great jumping off point for people who actually follow WP:BEFORE!  Americanfreedom ( talk ) 17:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would appreciate some WP:AGF .  I'm not complaining, and I did research before making the AfD.  From that research, and still after this discussion, I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG .  For example, is NY Times article you linked "in depth"?  Is the WaPo article you linked "reliable"?  (It mostly centers on how the device learns from its mistake, which directly contradicts how the device works according to the NYT article.)  Thanks for the link you gave to your custom Google search, I don't know where you found it but it gives better results than a normal Google search so I'll add that to the list of things I checked before making this AfD.  I do believe the Chicago Tribune reference you found is good (thanks again for finding that!), but I'm not sure if one reliable source satisfies GNG.  I'll stop debating here and let someone else weigh in on GNG.  Mokadoshi ( talk ) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The toy is notable.  There is announcement and release information about the toy ( [33] [34] ) and some significant coverage ( [35] [36] [37] [38] ).  The website suggests there are some inaccessible sources ( [39] ) and awards ( [40] ) - see WP:NEXIST .  Given that the Toys WikiProject is a bit dead, and there's no formal notability guidance, I think the fact there's a specific product that recieved coverage and recognition in reliable sources for its novelty and received industry awards is enough for me.  The game is a combination of an artificial intelligence prototype, website, then toy; the article could theoretically merge these and further cement notability if the notability of the toy alone was in doubt.  The LLM/AI angle is interesting and there seems to be a source or two on Google Scholar about this.  On the WP:BEFORE debate above - look, it's inconvenient when key sources are missed, but it happens.  It's no big deal, especially when the sources are ultimately found.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 04:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Discussion of the sources presented could be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The 20Q website, toy and quiz show are all just implementions of twenty questions, the real question is merge with twenty questions or kept split as overall the twenty questions concept is notable as a whole and there have been other quiz shows with the same formula.  77.103.193.166 ( talk ) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If an article subject is notable under the WP:GNG it plainly merits an article.  See WP:NOTMERGE .  I think these are discrete subjects even if they are closely related.  A similar concept would be video games based on a board game, which plainly merit their own articles.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: still waiting on discussion of sources Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Vrxces and Americanfreedom have supplied a slew of GNG -worthy sources in this discussion.  Left guide ( talk ) 05:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  The toy is clearly notable per above sources.  The article needs work, but deletion is uncalled for.  (I'm not sure what more discussion those relisting this are looking for? The above discussion is fairly robust, and located useful sources.) – Erakura (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn : I am not sure why multiple people have linked to the toy's official website or the inventor's written patents as examples of reliable sources, but everyone has found other sources that I don't disagree with.  So, I'm fine withdrawing this proposal.  And I'll probably stay away from AfD for a while since this is my 2nd proposal that I've had to withdraw, and I don't want to waste other people's times.  But at least I've learned something, like WP:Permastub - even if all the sources for this article only give the same couple basic facts, it can still be notable enough to deserve an article.  Mokadoshi ( talk ) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mokadoshi : good call, but don't be too discouraged, your efforts are in good faith.  I also agree that the toy company website and patents are useless for establishing notability.  It might be helpful to remember WP:NEXIST for future nominations.  Left guide ( talk ) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep