Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SugarBee

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 no consensus. No quorum for this discussion, but no prejudice against a speedy renomination. A Train^talk 13:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SugarBee[edit]

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

This is not a notable product and it is not even expected to be produced at "commercial volume" for several years (according to article creator). Maybe it will be a notable variety of apple in the future, but doesn't seem to be now. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It's a promotional article written by SPA with an apparent conflict of interest. Prod was removed by another SPA. Deli nk (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be unambiguous promotion, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. WP:TOOSOON for the apple itself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:48, 23 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.