Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NutriBullet

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NutriBullet[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Unremarkable product, borderline promotional. Only 'independant' source lookd like a PR job. TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a background on this, I'd like to put in a few words. For one, I do not even own this product, so I do not have any close ties to it. Second, I was very careful to include neutral language, and I appreciate that an editor removed some promotional style language. And, even though I'm experienced on some other wikis, I'm a newcomer here, and I knew from the beginning that there would be problems with the article.

As far as notability, I must acknowledge that the NutriBullet is not extremely popular. Like I mentioned on the discussion page, though, very well known stores sell the product. Writing Enthusiast (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Completely non-notable nutritional product. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, Fails WP:PRODUCT –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coevrage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "lacking in depth coverage" is a legitimate reason for deletion. That's what the stub tag is for. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 02:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no in depth coverage in the sources, how can it meet WP:GNG? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above fails WP:PRODUCT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2014 (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.