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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.