Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unistraw

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. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unistraw[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional. No independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reference helps establish notability, assuming that the publisher is a reliable source, as it appears to be. This is a bylined article in a reliable source, although it was probably inspired by a company press release. This is another bylined article, although it too was probably inspired by a company press release. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - all the mentioned articles seem a little too positive to make me think that the writers/publishers etc are completely reliable, but I'll stick with WK until someone gives a stronger indication. Food Australia journal also looks like it might have a but on it, but here I'm challenged both by reliability judgements and also what it might actually say. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the content has not been written and refernced in an encyclopedic manner, all the sections except the introductory paragraph is unreferenced. But the positive point is, the sources are a decade old and discuss the subject. It can be improved if labbled with any maintenance tag Rgyalu (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rgyalu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman My intention is not for keeping the page live, I expressed my thoughts and it is up to the Admins to decide depending on the sitution. I voted for delete on another article and got no tag of, "has made no other edits outside this topic." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgyalu (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT / WP:NCORP. Overly promotional with language such as "UDS can add flavour, energy, vitamins, nutrition, and even pharmaceuticals - to liquid sipped through it"! "Future applications"! Etc. The coverage offered above is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP, which can also result in a promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sipahh. The article is promotional, and Eastmain's sources are "trade press" in nature. Their most prominent product is a logical redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically, WP:AUD, due to all of the sources being niche, industry publications. In my own searching, I'm seeing trade journals specific to the dairy industry, the plastics industry, and everyday coverage of routine business announcements. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a redirect to Sipahh, but it's not really clear that's notable either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sipahh. The history is a bit confusing, but a Google search confirms that Sipahh is the most popular brand name for the Unistraw, so that seems a more obvious target for a merge. Don't be confused that there is also a company called Sipahh which apparently is owned by Club Trading and Distribution [[1]] or that in India, the brand is represented by Unistraw Holdings, [[2]] owned by India-based SRS Group.[[3]] Hopefully someone can sort this out. Maybe some of this can go in the background section for the Sipahh article, for context. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - yes, it may be promotional, but it's a brand people are familiar with. It has some recognition, but I'm unsure if it's enough to delete Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a brand people are familiar with is not one of the criteria in WP:NCORP :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that, but I don't see any other reason to delete it. I think there should be some waiting time for people to edit before deletion, maybe a month. If nobody comes up with anything, then delete it Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 10 August 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.