Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle-Gro AeroGarden

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. But a new article about the company could probably be created. Sandstein 06:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle-Gro AeroGarden[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable product - a line of indoor garden pots. None of the references are really about the pots themselves, except for the Yahoo Voices link (a blog post? "10 Tips for Growing Plants in an Aerogarden") which isn't a WP:RS. The other references are about the company that makes the pots; but even those are either non-independent (company website, press releases, etc.) or are routine coverage in minor niche publications. So even if one were to consider the article to be about the company rather than one of its products, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well. Peacock (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found a couple of refs on google, those in the article aren't up to much, [1] [2]. Szzuk (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to AeroGarden, the article should be refocused to be about the (probably notable) company, rather than the plant pots that it makes. Fish+Karate 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; likely UPE. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping their articles. If this company is indeed notable (of which I'm not convinced), then a volunteer editor will create an article in due time. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The one review in PC Mag is valid (the other one isn't), but that's just one product review. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2018 (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.