Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Ratio

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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Ratio[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable product, as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article talk more about other products rather than Happy Ratio itself. A7 was declined by Ritchie333 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Argument

I am not sure where I provide the argument to not delete the article, so I will just do it here. Happy Ratio is made by the SAME people that made The Perfect Meal, and SupermealX. The SupermealX and it's creator (Harsh Batra) were featured in very crdible media such as the New York Times, Economic Times, etc. Happy Ratio is the evolution and in a sense a rebranding of the SupermealX, so every article about th e SupermealX does apply to Happy Ratio as well, including of course NYTimes. To sum it up, Happy Ratio WAS SupermealX till a couple of months ago, and this new iteration just rebrands and markets ot more properly, but everything else is about the same as SupermealX (which recieved a lot of coverage and was clearly a notable product, hence the same applied to Happy Ratio). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshinvader (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinebot signature, messing up table of contents on the log page, "WE WAZ IN NOO YURK TIMEZ!!1"... obvious COI SPA is obvious. KMF (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

I added a history section to the article. Hope it makes clear that this is a notable product as it has received coverage from trusted news organisations.

Can I now go ahead and remove the deletion warning?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshinvader (talk • contribs)

Comment. I restored the AFD template which was removed from the article by 114.79.178.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Deli nk (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of WP:RS. shoy (reactions) 15:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:46, 28 July 2017 (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.